Sustainability 15 04306 v2

sustainability
Article
Multi-Objective Optimization-Based Approach for Optimal
Allocation of Distributed Generation Considering
Techno-Economic and Environmental Indices
Muhammad Shahroz Sultan 1 , Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi 1 , Abdullah Altamimi 2,3, * , Zafar A. Khan 4,5, *
and Dong Ryeol Shin 6
1 US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E), National University of Sciences and
Technology (NUST), H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Majmaah University,
Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
3 Engineering and Applied Science Research Center, Majmaah University,
Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Mirpur University of Science and Technology,
Mirpur AK 10250, Pakistan
5 School of Computing and Engineering, Institute for Innovation in Sustainable Engineering,
University of Derby, Derby DE22 1GB, UK
6 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Information and Communication
Engineering (CICE), Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (Z.A.K.)
Abstract: Distribution networks have entered a new era with the broad adoption of the distributed
generation (DG) allocation as a practical solution for addressing power losses, voltage variation, and
voltage stability. The primary goal is to enhance techno-economic and environmental characteristics
while meeting the limitations of the system. In order to allocate DGs in active distribution networks
(ADNs) efficiently, this study demonstrates two optimization methods inspired by nature: ant lion
optimization (ALO) and multiverse optimization (MVO). Various multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) methods are used to find the best possible solution among the different alternatives.
Citation: Sultan, M.S.; Kazmi, S.A.A.; On the IEEE 33- and 69-bus active distribution networks, the proposed ALO was shown to be
Altamimi, A.; Khan, Z.A.; Shin, D.R. effective and produces the highest loss reduction in the IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems at 94.43% and
Multi-Objective Optimization-Based 97.16%, respectively, and the maximum voltage stability index (VSI) was 0.9805 p.u and 0.9937 p.u,
Approach for Optimal Allocation of respectively; moreover, the minimum voltage deviation (VD ) and annual energy loss cost for the
Distributed Generation Considering given test systems was 0.00019 p.u and 3353.3 PKR, which shows that the suggested method can
Techno-Economic and Environmental
produce higher quality results as compared to other methods presented in the literature. Therefore,
Indices. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4306.
the proposed ALO is a very efficient, effective, and appealing solution to the optimal allocation of the
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054306
distributed generation (OADG) problem.
Academic Editor: Nicu Bizon
Keywords: ant lion optimization; distributed generation; greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
Received: 2 November 2022
Revised: 21 November 2022
multi-objective optimization; optimal allocation; optimal size
Accepted: 25 November 2022
Published: 28 February 2023
1. Introduction
The distribution system causes a significant voltage drop and a low voltage stability
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. due to its high R/X ratio [1]. Energy resources are a global concern and energy consump-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
tion measures are society’s development. Industrial, economic, and social changes are
This article is an open access article
boosting load demand. The challenge is providing enough power efficiently and affordably.
distributed under the terms and
Microgrids and multi-microgrids have been gaining traction all over the world due to the
conditions of the Creative Commons
increasing use of distributed energy resources (DERs) in the last decade. The modern grid
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
has several advantages over the traditional grid, but some shortcomings, such as power
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
losses, power quality, and voltage instability, need to be addressed to make the system
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054306 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4306 2 of 30
reliable. The advantages of allocating DGs at the optimal locations into the distribution system
entail technical, economic, and environmental benefits. Power loss minimization, voltage
profile improvement, and system stability enhancement are considered technical benefits of
the optimal allocation of DGs (OADG). Economically, it helps in reducing power loss costs and
increases annual loss savings. Placing the renewable generations of optimal sizes at optimal
locations helps to reduce environmental effects, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
DG units are either classified as conventional (diesel engines) or renewable (solar and
wind power). Their penetration has changed the structure of the radial distribution system
(RDS) from passive to active and the unidirectional flow of power to multi-directional [2].
In order to obtain the above-mentioned benefits from the integration of DGs, and to avoid
its negative impacts, such as reverse power flow, high power losses, and unfavorable
voltage levels [3], the optimal sizing and siting of DGs are of significant importance. The
OADG has been an exciting and challenging problem to focus on. Therefore, researchers
have taken various studies and developed different optimization techniques to address
this problem.
This research article proposed two efficient, nature-inspired metaheuristic optimiza-
tion techniques, known as ant lion optimization (ALO) [4] and multiverse optimization
(MVO) [5], to solve the optimal sizing and siting problems of distributed generation. The
ALO has been used in different optimization problems, such as the scheduling of generation,
flexible process planning, and structure design of the skeletal structure [6–8], respectively.
Similarly, the MVO has also shown its effectiveness in solving various optimization prob-
lems. Moreover, in this paper, the OADG problem is solved as a multi-objective optimiza-
tion problem considering techno-economic and environmental attributes. The objectives
include active and reactive power loss reduction, voltage deviation (VD ) minimization,
voltage stability index (VSI) enhancement, annual energy loss cost (CAEL ) reduction, and an-
nual energy loss cost saving (SAEL ) subjected to voltage and power constraints. Figure 1
shows the framework of the proposed work. The main contribution of this research paper
can be summarized as follows.
(i) An efficient optimization approach is used to identify the appropriate allocation of
DG units in the active distribution system.
(ii) The main objectives are to minimize the total power losses and voltage devia-
tion and to maximize the VSI, thus lowering the yearly energy loss costs and
carbon emissions.
(iii) IEEE 33- and 69-bus ADNs are used to test the effectiveness of the proposed technique.
(iv) The suggested ALO’s efficacy is compared to MVO and other well-known opti-
mization approaches at various operating scenarios.
(v) The functioning of DG units at various power factors is investigated. It was
observed that when DGs run at optimal power factors, the total performance of an
ADN (techno-economic and environmental benefits) is greatly increased.
(vi) Several MCDM methodologies are employed to find the best trade-off among the
available alternatives.
The following is how this paper is structured: Section 2 highlights the relevant work
conducted by the researchers in recent years. Section 3 discusses the methodology, covering
the primary objective functions and MCDM approaches in-depth, as well as an overview
of the algorithms utilized. The numerical findings based on the test systems are reported in
Section 4. Finally, in Section 5, the conclusion is discussed.
Figure 1. Development of proposed technique (adapted from [9]).
2. Literature Review
The algorithms for solving OADG problems can be classified into different categories,
such as analytical [10–12], numerical [13–15], and intelligent search-based methods [16–18].
The problem of the optimal sizing and siting of DGs has been solved by many researchers,
either by considering a single-objective optimization problem (SOOP) or a multi-objective opti-
mization problem (MOOP). Power loss reduction has been the primary objective in the SOOP,
whereas for the multi-objective one, power loss minimization, voltage stability enhancement,
voltage deviation reduction, and cost minimization are considered simultaneously.
In [19], the authors hybridized analytical and heuristic strategies to solve the OADG
and minimize power losses. The size of the DGs was computed analytically, and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) was used to find their optimal locations. The suggested method
was tested on IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems. The authors of [20] determined the optimal
location of DGs to reduce power losses by using analytical methods while considering both
radial and meshed distribution systems. The OADG problem in [15] was solved using
mixed-integer linear programming and the steady-state behavior of the RDS was modeled
using linear expressions at different load levels. Mixed-integer linear programming (MILP)
was used in [21] to reduce power losses in the radial distribution network (RDN). The
authors used single- and multi-objective improved Harris hawk optimization algorithms
(IHHO) to tackle the OADG problems at varied power factors [2]. The fundamental
objective of the incorporation of DG was to enhance voltage profiles and lower power
losses, which will ultimately lead to a rise in the overall efficiency of the power system [22].
The OADG technical, economic, and environmental concerns were solved using a
stochastic multi-objective model [23]. A modified version of grey wolf optimization (GWO)
was used in [24] to optimally place DGs, considered techno-economic benefits. Various
loads (commercial, industrial, residential, constant power, current, and impedance) were
considered at different loading levels, such as a full, light, and heavy load. A multi-
objective function was presented in [25] for the optimal placement of DGs to minimize
losses and improve reliability; a time-varying load was used to achieve the practical
outcomes, while the entire study and its requirements were based on a cost–benefit analysis.
The authors of [26] addressed power loss reduction, high voltage stability, and voltage
profile enhancement by combining PSO and GA while considering operational and security
constraints. The IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems were utilized to highlight the usefulness
of the suggested method. A new hybrid solution based on an evolutionary algorithm
and intelligent water drop (IWD) algorithm improved the voltage stability, reduced the
voltage deviation, and minimized the power loss for the IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems [27].
The author presented a novel method for determining the DG placement and size to reduce
losses, operating costs, and voltage instability. The loss sensitivity factor (LSF) was used to
discover the most sensitive bus for a DG installation [28].
Ant colony optimization (ACO) and the artificial bee colony (ABC) were hybridized
to resolve the location and sizing problem of DGs in distribution networks. The cost, loss,
and GHG emission reductions were discussed [29]. Similarly, the optimal DG placement
and sizing problems were discussed in [30–33] by using various optimization algorithms.
GA was employed for siting while the optimal power flow was used for the DG sizing.
The proposed methodology was tested in the UK under the existing gem financial incentives
for DNOs and was effective in finding and sizing DG units [30]. In [31], evolutionary
programming was utilized to optimally arrange PV arrays and wind turbine generators
(WTG). Probabilistic techniques were used to deal with the load and renewable resource
uncertainty, and a 69-bus distribution test system was used to test the devised approach.
The authors of [32] addressed multiple objectives to give economical solutions to solve the
OADG problem by using GA and the e-constrained method. To provide power system
stability, protection devices and distributed generators (DGs) in radial feeders must be
optimized. The authors proposed a technique to properly arrange DGs and protection
devices in an RDS to improve the system reliability [33].
The optimal allocation of wind and solar in terms of the objective function while
accounting for uncertainties was found using lightning attachment procedure optimization
(LAPO) in an RDN; the effectiveness of the proposed method was verified using a 118-
bus system, and the results validated the efficacy of the proposed algorithm [34]. In a
cost–benefit analysis, the elephant herding optimization (EHO) algorithm was applied and
evaluated on IEEE 15-bus, 33-bus, and 69-bus systems. The proposed algorithm with a type-
III DG unit operating at 0.9 pf produces better results [35]. To decrease the active power loss
and boost the voltage stability index while solving the OADG problem, a multi-objective
BAT algorithm (BA) was employed in [36]. The manta ray foraging optimization technique,
also known as MRFO, was applied in [37] to figure out the location and capacity of type-one
DGs for the purpose of cutting down on power losses in an RDN. The authors of [38] used
an improved raven roosting optimization (IRRO) method to boost the techno-economic
advantages of DG deployment in the radial distribution system (RDS), and the IEEE 33- and
69-bus systems were the test systems to check the effectiveness of the proposed technique.
In [39], the power losses were minimized under deterministic factors and the validity was
tested on IEEE 69- and 118-bus systems.
Researchers around the world have attempted to deal with the asset planning’s mul-
tiple distribution strategy restrictions. The methodologies identify a trade-off between
numerous competing objectives. These trade-off solutions could be techno-economic or
environmental, or both [40]. Several works based on MCDMs on the axis of grid-connected
ADNs, such as [41,42], have sought to fulfill the largely technical and economic objectives
while incorporating radiality constraints and spanning normal load situations without eval-
uating large-scale planning horizons. The technical, economical, and environmental-based
strategy is used simultaneously in [43] across typical loading scenarios at different power
factors associated with REGs in radially constructed ADNs.
According to this literature review, most of these population-based optimization
strategies have been effectively applied to estimate the size, location, and loss reduction
problem of DG in the active distribution system. However, many of them suffer from
local optimality and need a significant amount of computational power to simulate. This
motivates the authors to provide a new, simple, efficient, and rapid population-based
optimization approach for solving the optimum DG placement problem of the radial
distribution system. Another significant observation is that, for the multi-objective problem,
most of the studies only look at DGs with the unity power factor, and only a few studies
explore the applicability of the proposed method to large-scale networks, whereas in this
paper, many operating modes (the unity, fixed, and optimal power factors) for DGs are
considered. Many researchers have presented their work focusing on one of the components
of the objective functions (technical, economic, and environmental), while in this study,
simultaneously the techno-economic and environmental attributes are taken into account
while solving the OADG problem.
3. Methodology
This section highlights the objective functions that are considered for addressing the
optimum allocation of DG problem, as well as the details of the methodologies used.
3.1. Objective Functions

The issue of DG allocation requires special attention to the formulation of the objective
function and specific limitations must be properly modeled. The primary goal of the
optimal allocation of DGs in the distribution system is to attain desired objectives by
satisfying equality and inequality constraints. The proposed objective functions are power
loss reduction, maximization of voltage stability index, voltage deviation minimization,
real power loss cost reduction, increasing real power loss savings, and CO2 emissions
reduction. Figure 2 shows a branch of an active distribution network having Pb and Qb as
active and reactive power at receiving end, respectively.
Figure 2. A representative branch of RDS (adapted from [44]).
3.1.1. Active Power Loss (PL )

As active power losses in distribution networks are significant due to their radial
topology, it is necessary to mitigate these losses to make the system stable and reliable.
OF1 = min( PL ) (1)
Mathematically, (PL ) is expressed in [44] as
R ab n n
Va Vb a∑ ∑ cos(δa − δb ) ∗ ( Pa Pb + Qa Qb )
PL = (
=1 b =1 (2)
+ sin(δa − δb ) ∗ ( Q a Pb − Qb Pa )
a and b are two different buses in which power loss is being calculated. Va , δa are voltage
magnitude and angle at bus a, respectively, similarly Vb , δb are voltage magnitude and
angle at bus b, respectively. Pa and Q a are real and reactive power at bus a; similarly, Pb
and Qb show real and reactive power at bus b. PL is calculated in [9] by following relation.
N
PL = ∑ | Ib |2 Rb (3)
b =1
b is the number of the branch, whereas | Ib | and Rb show the absolute value of the current
and resistance of the branch, respectively. Another dimension of the above-mentioned
objective is to maximize the percentage reduction in power loss, which may be determined
using (4) in which PLbc shows base-case (without DG) power loss and PLwdg represents
power loss with DGs. " #
PLbc − PLwdg
%PL = × 100 (4)
PLbc
3.1.2. Reactive Power Loss (Q L )

Minimization of reactive power losses (Q L ) is of great importance in OADG problem.
OF2 = min( Q L ) (5)
In [45], reactive power loss is calculated by

N
QL = ∑ | Ib |2 Xb (6)
b =1
In (6), b is the number of branches, whereas | Ib | and Xb show the absolute value of the
current and reactance of the branch, respectively.
3.1.3. Voltage Stability Index (VSI)

VSI is the ability of the system to maintain the voltage within the satisfactory range.
The primary goal is to maximize the lowest VSI in the system [46].
OF3 = max (lowest(VSIb )) (7)
VSIb =Va4 − 4( Pb R ab + Qb Xab ) ∗ Va2

(8)
− 4( Pb Xab − Qb R ab )
In (8), a is sending-end bus and b is receiving-end bus, Pb and Qb are active and
reactive power of receiving-end bus, respectively, whereas R ab and Xab show resistance
and reactance between two buses, respectively.
3.1.4. Voltage Deviation (VD )
OF4 = min(VD ) (9)

Voltage deviation shows the deviation of voltage from its reference voltage (Vre f )
which is 1.0 p.u.
n 2
VD = ∑ Va − Vre f (10)
a =1
3.1.5. Annual Energy Loss Cost (C AEL )

C AEL demonstrates the validity of the proposed technique from a cost perspective.
The aim of this objective is to lower the annual cost of energy loss.
OF5 = min(C AEL ) (11)
Equation (12) is used to calculate energy loss cost [47].
C AEL = PL ∗ µ E ∗ t (12)
where
PL is the power loss;
µ E is the rate of energy (PKR/kWh);
t is the time (8760 h).
As we are dealing with annual energy cost, “t” is 8760 h and µ E is taken as 0.06 PKR/kWh.
3.1.6. Annual Energy Loss Cost Saving (S AEL )

S AEL can be calculated by (13)
S AEL = C AEL− bc − C AEL− dg (13)
3.1.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE )

While considering environmental effects, several studies in the literature seek to
identify the determinants of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions because of large increases
in CO2 emissions over the last few decades. So, the solution to the problem must meet
environmental demands, and the above-mentioned objective is to determine whether the
solution provided is environmentally feasible or not. Carbon emissions (CE ) are calculated
in [48] by (14) and (15)
x
CEbc = ∑ ( GE ) a ∗ ( µ e ) a (14)
a =1
x y
CEwdg = ∑ (GE )a ∗ (µe )a + ∑ ( DGE )b ∗ (µe )b (15)
a =1 b =1
CEb c and CEwdg show CO2 emissions in the base case (without DG) and with DG,
respectively. GE , DGE represent energy generated by grid and DG, respectively, whereas
µe shows CO2 emissions rate, and it is different for different sources [49].
3.2. Operational Constraints

The issue of DG allotment in the distribution framework ought to be exposed to two
following constraints.
1. Equality constraints.
2. Inequality constraints.
3.2.1. Equality Constraints

Power Balance Constraints
The principle of equilibrium upholds equality constraints. The power flow equations
that correspond to both the real and reactive power balance equations are mathematically
defined as follows [29]
n
Pa = Va ∑ Vb Yab Cos(θab − δa + δb) (16)
b =1
n
Q a = Va ∑ Vb Yab Sin(θab − δa + δb) (17)
b =1
where Pa and Q a are real and reactive power at bus a, Va and δa are voltage magnitude
and its angle at ath bus, respectively. The magnitude and angle of admittance between bus
a and b are shown by Yab and θ ab , respectively. Power flow should follow the following
equations to fulfill the equality constraint’s requirements.
PGen = Pload + Ploss (18)
QGen = Qload + Qloss (19)
3.2.2. Inequality Constraints

Voltage Limits
The total voltage generated is divided into two parts; some of the voltage appears
across the load and some part of it is dropped across the line/impedance. The higher the
impedance, the higher the voltage drop, but the voltage limit constraint states that the
voltage across the bus must be within the acceptable range. This paper considers that range
to be 0.90 to 1.05.
Va− MI N ≤ Va ≤ Va− MAX (20)
a shows the bus number.
a = 1, 2, 3 . . . N
DG Capacity Limits
The size of DGs must be within their minimum and maximum allowable limits.
PaDG
MI N
≤ PaDG ≤ PaDG
MAX
(21)
In (21), PaDG
MI N
and PaDG
MAX
show the minimum and maximum range of power output at
bus a, whereas Pa shows power output at ath bus.
DG
3.3. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

To solve decision-making problems that include a set of predetermined solutions,
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques are applied. To assess energy planning
based on technical, economical, and environmental aspects, MCDM methods are utilized.
The evaluation procedure has become more complex and time-consuming as additional
criteria and options have been added. If it comes to incorporating significant or delicate
criteria, different strategies take different approaches, but when multiple situations, circum-
stances, and limits are taken into account, MCDM models are best suited to come up with a
good answer. This paper discusses several MCDM models, such as WSM, WPM, TOPSIS,
and VIKER, that can be used to address the key issues that must be addressed in order to
accomplish sustainability objectives.
3.3.1. Weighted Sum Method (WSM)

WSM is one of the most widely used strategies for computing rank, with the goal of
finding the best answer among numerous options in terms of the highest score. Equation (22)
chooses the solution with the highest score as the best among m alternatives based on
n criteria.
m
∑ Nk Wk
j
SWSM
j = (22)
k =1
where Sj WSM indicates the weighted sum score, Nk j is the normalized score of jth alterna-
tive/solution from the reference of kth criterion, and Wk is the weight associated with the
kth criterion. To rank the best, use the significant cardinal scores for each choice. The option
with the highest score is regarded as the best option.
3.3.2. Weighted Product Method (WPM)

The weighted product method is an MCDM method that is used to choose the best
alternative based on numerous criteria, and the optimal solution is found by using multipli-
cation rather than addition, with the goal of determining ranks of alternatives as illustrated
in WSM. In a pairwise comparison, the best answer is the one with the highest score,
as indicated in the equation below.
m
j Wk

PjWPM = ∏ Nk (23)
k =1
where Pj WPM indicates the weighted product score.
3.3.3. Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

This method is based on the idea of calculating the distance between two hypothetical
solutions: the negative ideal solution (NIS) and the positive ideal solution (PIS). The ideal
option should be the one with the least geometric distance from the best solution and
the greatest geometric distance from the worst. This method can be summarized in the
following steps:
The normalized decision matrix can be calculated as:
j S jk
Nk = q (24)
∑nj=1 S2jk
The weighted normalized decision matrix Xjk is calculated as:
j
Yjk = Nk ∗ Wk (25)
Determine the best (PIS) and the worst (NIS) alternative by Equations (26) and (27),
respectively.

n n
Ykb = max Yjk |k ∈ K , min Yjk |k ∈ K 0 (26)
j =1 j =1

n n
Ykw = min Yjk |k ∈ K , max Yjk |k ∈ K 0 (27)
j =1 j =1
where K is the set of beneficial criteria and K0 is a set of non-beneficial criteria, and the
Euclidean distance from each alternative can be calculated as:
!1/2
m
Ebj = ∑ (Yjk − Ykb )2 , j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n (28)
k =1
!1/2
m
Ew
j = ∑ (Yjk − Ykw )2 , j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n (29)
k =1
For measuring the proximity of the available alternatives, the relative similarity of
each option to and from the ideal solutions is determined.
Ew
j
Pj = , 0 ≤ Pj ≤ 1, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . n (30)
Ebj + Ew
j
The best solution can be determined by (30).
3.3.4. VIKOR
The procedure of VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) is
indicated as follows.
For all beneficial and non-beneficial criterion functions, determine the best and
worst values.
n n
Skb = max S jk |k ∈ K , min S jk |k ∈ K 0 (31)
j =1 j =1

n n
Skw = min S jk |k ∈ K , max S jk |k ∈ K 0 (32)
j =1 j =1
where
K∈ is set of beneficial criteria;
K0 ∈ is set of non-beneficial criteria.
The normalized decision matrix Nk j is calculated as:
Njk = (Skb − S jk )/(Skb − Skw ) (33)

Compute utility measure Sj and regret measure Rj by using the following equations.
m
Sj = ∑ Wk ∗ Njk (34)
k =1
m

R j = max Wk ∗ Njk (35)
k =1
Now, calculate the VIKOR index by the equation given below
S j − S∗ R j − R∗

Qj = v + ( 1 − v ) (36)
S− − S∗ R− − R∗
where
S* = min j Sj ;
S- = max j Sj ;
R* = min j Rj ;
R- = max j Rj .
The weight for the greatest group utility strategy is v, which is commonly set to 0.5 for
a balanced approach. The best accessible solution is determined as the alternative with the
lowest VIKOR value.
3.4. Overview of Optimization Techniques

The following optimization techniques are used in this paper to solve the OADG problem:
1. Ant lion optimization (ALO).
2. Multiverse optimization (MVO).
3.4.1. Ant Lion Optimization

ALO is an efficient, nature-inspired, metaheuristic optimization Algorithm 1 presented
by Mir Jalili [4] in 2015. ALO imitates the natural hunting mechanism of ant lions, and it
can be used to solve different optimization problems because of its balancing capability
between exploration and exploitation. This method consists of a random walk exploration
followed by a random selection of agents, and the exploitation process is performed with
traps. By moving in a circular pattern and pushing sand out with its jaws, an ant lion larva
creates a cone-shaped trench in the sand [50]. The larva hides beneath the bottom of the
cone after digging the trap and waits for insects to be captured in the pit [51]. The pointed
edge of the cone allows insects to readily fall to the bottom of the trap. When the ant lion
discovers a prey in the trap, it strives to capture it. Then, it is sucked into the ground and
eaten. Ant lions prepare the pit again after eating the prey and tossing the remains outside
of the pit [52]. ALO follows five basic steps of ant lions for hunting.
1. Random walk of agents.
2. Trap building.
3. Trapping of ants.
4. Capturing prey.
5. Trap reconstruction.
The explanation of each step with its mathematical modeling is as follows.
Random Walk of Agents

While searching for prey, ants often move in a stochastic manner, and this randomness
can be modeled by (37)
X (t) = [0, csum(2r (t1 ) − 1), csum(2r (t2 )−

(37)
1) . . . csum(2r (tn ) − 1)]
where csum means cumulative sum and r(t) can be defined as

0 if rand ≤ 0.5
r (t) = (38)
1 if rand > 0.5
In (38), rand will generate a random number between 0 and 1. If this random number is
less than or equal to 0.5, then it will assign value 0 to r(t); otherwise, value 1 will be assigned
to r(t). Equation (37) shows that ants changed their position randomly, so to normalize
their position and to fulfill boundary constraints, following equation can be used.
t
Xi − Vi × Zit − Yit

t
Xi = + Yit (39)
Wi − Vi
Equation (39) is used to make sure that random walk must be in search space, so it can
be used in every iteration. Minimum and maximum walk of ith variable is shown by Vi and
Wi , respectively, whereas Yit and Zit show lower and upper extreme values of ith variable at
tth iteration.
Trap Building
A roulette wheel operator is used to simulate the hunting activity of ant lions. Dur-
ing the optimization phase, this operator is used to choose the ant lions based on their
fitness value. This strategy increases the chances of the ant lions catching the prey.
Algorithm 1: Pseudo Code of ALO

Initializing ALO parameters
Set initial values
Initialize ants and antlions positions
for i = 1 : 50 do
calculate initial fitness values for ants and antlions
end
sort best fitness value and set it as elite
while current_iter <max_iter + 1 do
for each ant do
find antlion using roulette wheel
update values of y and z by (42) and (43)
simulate and normalize a random walk by using (37) and (39)
update ant position
end
Bring antlions back if they go beyond boundaries
calculate fitness
replace antlion with corresponding fitter ant by using (44)
update the position of the elite if any antlion becomes fitter than it.
end
Trapping of Ants
Ant lions’ traps affect the random movements of ants in a search space. The following
equations mathematically illustrate the effect of ant lions’ traps on the random movement
of ants.
Yit = AntLtj + Y t (40)
Zit = AntLtj + Z t (41)
Y t and Z t are vectors that show the values of variables at tth iteration, and AntLtj refers
to position of jth ant lion at tth iteration.
Sliding Ants toward Ant Lions

Using the above-mentioned processes, the ant lions build the traps according to their
fitness value. Ant lions start throwing the sand outward from the center of the trap, once
randomly moving ants get trapped near the traps, and this eliminates the possibility of
ants escaping. The radius of random ant walks in the hypersphere is adaptively decreased.
Equations (42) and (43) can be used to mathematically reflect this process.
yt
yt = (42)
I
zt
zt = (43)
I
yt and zt are vectors that show max and min values of variables at tth iteration and
I = 10W t/T where t denotes the current iteration, T shows a total number of iterations,
and W depends upon the current iteration.
Capturing Prey and Trap Building

In this step, the focus is catching prey by ant lions (predators) and rebuilding traps
for catching new prey (ants). To depict this mechanism, it is assumed that prey can only
be grabbed when ants become fitter than ant lions. The mathematical form of this step is
shown below.
AntL tj = Antit if f Ant it > f AntL tj

(44)
Variables in (44) show position of ith ant and jth ant lion at tth iteration.
Elitism
The best ant lion solution is regarded as elite in each iteration of the ALO algorithm.
As the elite is the finest ant lion, it should be able to dominate the whole movements of
the other ants throughout the iterations. The following mathematical equation is used to
illustrate the elitism process.
Rta + Rte

t
Ant i = (45)
2
In Equation (45), Rta and Rte show random walk of ants around ant lions and elite,
respectively. Pseudo code for ALO is given and Figure 3 shows the flow chart for proposed
ant lion optimization.
3.4.2. Multiverse optimization

A proposed multiverse optimizer is a unique stochastic population-based Algorithm 2
presented in 2015 [5]. MVO is based on the multiverse theory of physics and MVO can be
presented mathematically by using three major ideas from this theory:
1. White hole.
2. Black hole.
3. Worm hole.
The multiverse theory states that objects are traded between worlds via black, white,
and wormholes. Things are sent through white holes in universes having greater inflation
rates, whereas universes with low inflation rates are used to receive objects through black
holes. The following is the mathematical model for white and black hole tunnels and item
transfer across universes.
y1i y2i y3i . . . yin

Vi = (46)
Vi in (46) shows ith universe, total number of decision variables are represented by n,
and yi shows ith candidate’s decision variable. To locate the universe containing the white
hole, utilize the roulette wheel approach as follows.
Figure 3. Flow chart of proposed ALO.

j
(
j ys rand < norinf(Vi )
yi = j (47)
yi rand ≥ norinf(Vi )
rand in (47) shows random number between [0,1] and norin f shows normal inflation rate,
j
whereas ys shows jth variable of sth universe. The above equation shows that universes with
higher inflation rates are more likely to have a white hole, whereas universes with lower
inflation rates are more likely to contain a black hole. By this strategy, we can improve
the exploration phase, whereas for the improvement in exploitation phase, objects are
exchanged among universes through worm holes. The mathematical expression for this
step is shown in (48). rand2 and rand3 show a random number between 0 and 1, whereas
the lower bound and upper bound are denoted in (48) by lb and ub, respectively. Values of
TDR and WEP can be calculated by using (49) and (50), respectively.
 j
 yc + TDR[(ubi − lbi ) rand + lbi ]

 

 rand 1 < 0.5 i f rand2 < WEP

 

j j
yi =  yc + TDR[(ubi − lbi ) rand + lbi ]
 (48)
 
rand 1 ≥ 0.5

 


 j

yi i f rand2 ≥ WEP
1
!
iter P
TDR = 1 − (49)
iter− max
iter (WEPMAX − WEPMI N )

WEP = WEPMI N + (50)
iter_max
iter_max is the maximum number of iterations and iter is the current iteration, whereas
WEPMAX , WEPMI N , and P are constants. Pseudo code of MVO is given, and Figure 4
shows a flow chart of multiverse optimization.
Figure 4. Flow chart of MVO.
Algorithm 2: Pseudo Code of MVO

Input: iter_max and size of population
Output: finest universe and inflation rate
Set initial parameters
Initialize universes, WEP and TDR
while curr_iter ≤ max_iter do
Calculate fitness value for universes
for i = 1 : universe_size do
Update WEP and TDR
for (every object) do
if rand1 < NSI rates (i) then
White_hole_index= RWS (- NSI rates)
Universes (BHI, j)=SU (WHI, j)
if rand2 < WEP then
if rand3 < 0.5 then
Universes(i,j)=BU(1,j)+TDR*((ub-lb)*rand+lb)
else
Universes (i, j) =BU(1, j)-TDR*((ub-lb)*rand+lb)
end
end
end
end
end
end
4. Results and Discussion

In this section, the validity and effectiveness of the proposed method have been tested
on the IEEE 33-bus and IEEE 69-bus systems. The proposed method is simulated in a
MATLAB 2020a environment on an HP PAVILION AMD RYZEN 4000 series 5, with 8
GB RAM. This research article addresses multiple objectives that include the power loss
reduction, voltage deviation (VD) minimization, maximization of the voltage stability index,
and energy loss cost reduction improves the energy loss cost savings and CO2 emissions.
The following cases are considered in this system to evaluate the results:
1. Without the DG (base case);
2. Three DGs at unity power factor;
3. Three DGs at 0.95 power factor;
4. Three DGs at optimal power factor.
4.1. TEE Parameters Evaluation

Table 1 shows the evaluation of the technical, economical, and environmental (TEE)
indices of the IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems using the proposed ALO. The active power loss,
reactive power loss, voltage deviation, and voltage stability index are considered as the
technical parameters. The annual energy loss cost and the annual energy loss cost savings
fall in the category of economical indices, whereas in the environmental parameters, the
carbon emissions are considered.
It can be noted that the results of the technical parameters are significantly improved
as compared to the base case at each power factor considered. In the optimal power factor,
PL (in kW) reduces to 11.74 from 210.9, QL (in kVAR) reduces to 11.2571 from 142.4355,
and VSI (in p.u) increases from 0.6672 to 0.9805, which are better than the results at other
p.fs, but VD comes out to be 0.000278 p.u at 0.95 p.f which is better among other cases.
Similarly in the IEEE 69-bus system, the PL , QL , and VSI give better results at the OPF
which are 6.38 kW, 7.0149 kVAR, and 0.9937 p.u, respectively. The voltage deviation reduces
to 0.00024 p.u at 0.95 p.f which is better than 0.001291 p.u at unity and 0.000329 p.u at the
optimal power factor.
Table 1. Evaluation of technical, economical, and environmental indices.
Technical Economical Environmental

Cases PF PL QL V SI VD C AEL S AEL CE
(kW) (kVAR) (p.u) (p.u) (103 PKR) (%) (106 kg)
Base case 210.9 142.4355 0.6672 0.13271 110.849 - 22.3540
IEEE 33 Unity 70.64 50.6117 0.8937 0.006463 37.1283 66.51 4.6286
0.95 27.84 22.2150 0.9579 0.000278 14.6327 86.80 4.0362
Optimal 11.74 11.2571 0.9805 0.000461 6.1705 94.43 5.6150
Base case 224.6 101.9914 0.6832 0.09765 118.0498 - 22.9285
IEEE 69 Unity 68.68 35.1813 0.9678 0.001291 36.0982 69.42 7.1208
0.95 21.67 14.1087 0.9885 0.00024 11.3898 90.35 6.6275
Optimal 6.38 7.0149 0.9937 0.000329 3.3533 97.16 8.6501
CAEL and SAEL are considered to show the effectiveness of the proposed technique from
the economical aspect, for the IEEE 33-bus system CAEL (in 103 PKR) reduces from 110.849
to 37.1283, 14.6327, and 6.1705 at unity, 0.95, and optimal p.f, respectively. By using the
proposed technique, the energy loss cost savings can be increased up to 94.43% annually for
the 33-bus test system. Similarly for the 69-bus test system, the CAEL (in 103 PKR) reduces
from 118.0498 to 36.0982, 11.3898, and 3.3533 at unity, 0.95, and optimal p.f, respectively,
and SAEL can be increased up to 97.16% annually. Equations (14) and (15) can be used to
calculate the carbon emissions for the base case (without DG) and other cases (with DGs),
respectively. The following assumptions are made to calculate the emissions from in the
base case, where we are using an oil-fired plant whose µe is 0.65 kg CO2 /kWh [49], and the
PV is being used at unity p.f, so µe is taken as 0.058 kg CO2 /kWh [49]. For the other cases,
the bio-mass is considered as the generation source so µe is taken as 0.093 kg CO2 /kWh [49].
It can be seen from Table 1 that the carbon emissions are reduced to a significant value by
using the proposed method in both the 33- and 69-bus test systems. The best results for
CE (in 106 kg) are 4.0362 and 6.6275 obtained at 0.95 p.f for both test systems (33 and 69),
respectively.
4.2. IEEE 33-Bus System

This test system is used to test the validity of the proposed techniques. The IEEE
33-bus system has 33 buses and 32 branches. Its active and reactive power demands are
3.71 MW and 2.30 MVAr, respectively. This system has a rated voltage of 12.66 kV and a
100 MVA base. According to the power flow solution, the active and reactive power losses
in the system are 210.99 kW and 143.13 kVAr, respectively. The base-case results (without
the DG installation) are shown in Table 1, and Figure 5 shows a single-line diagram of the
33-bus active distribution network. The number of iterations are fixed to 150 for each case.
Figure 5. SLD of IEEE 33-bus system.
4.2.1. CASE 1: Three DGs at Unity P.F

The results obtained by the proposed techniques at unity power factor and their
comparison with other techniques are shown in Table 2. The proposed ALO and MVO
have yielded a total active power loss of 70.64 kW which is less than that of 72.785 kW
from SFSA [44], 72.7869 kW from QOCSOS [53], 82.03 kW from LSFSA [54], 72.8 kW
from QOSIMBO-Q [55], 75.540 kW from TLBO [56], 74.101 kW from QOTLBO [56], and
75.412 kW from KHA [57]. The annual energy loss cost (CAEL ) comes out to be PKR
37128.384 from the ALO and MVO which is also lower as compared to the others, such as
the SFSA [44], QOCSOS [53], LSFSA [54], QOSIMBO-Q [55], TLBO [56], QOTLBO [56], and
KHA [57] that optimized the cost to PKR 38255.796, PKR 38256.794, PKR 43114.968, PKR
38263.68, PKR 39703.824, PKR 38899.656, and PKR 39636.547, respectively. Similarly, the
reactive power loss obtained by the ALO and MVO are 50.6117 kVAR and 50.639 3 kVAR,
respectively, which are then optimized to 50.6724 kVAR from KHA [57], 50.9507 kVAR
from TLBO [56], and 57.0394 kVAR from LSFSA [54]. Whereas the QL obtained from
the proposed methods are slightly higher than that of QOTLBO [56], QOSIMO-Q [55],
SFSA [44], and QOCSOS [53]. In addition to the active and reactive power loss, this paper
has considered the voltage stability index (VSI) improvement and voltage deviation (VD )
reduction as objective functions to resolve the OADG problem. The VSI obtained from
the MVO and ALO is 0.8939 p.u. and 0.8937 p.u., respectively, and Table 2 shows that the
obtained values are better than 0.8805 p.u. from SFSA [44] and QOCSOS [53], 0.8768 p.u.
from LSFSA [54], 0.8738p.u. from SIMBO-Q [55], 0.8804 p.u. from QOSIMBO-Q [55],
0.8365 p.u. from TLBO [56], 0.8656 p.u. from QOTLBO [56], and 0.8528 p.u. from KHA [57].
Similarly, the values obtained for the VD (in p.u.) through the proposed techniques are
0.00633 and 0.006463 which are lower than the values obtained by the QOTLBO [56],
TLBO [56], QOSIMBO-Q [55], SIMBO-Q [55], QOCSOS [53], and SFSA [44] methods which
are 0.0160, 0.0222, 0.0151, 0.0151, 0.0150998, and 0.015099, respectively.
Table 2. Result comparison for the IEEE 33-bus system at unity power factor.
DG Size/Bus PL (kW) QL C AEL

Method VD VSI
(MW) (%PL ) (kVAR) (PKR)
0.8020/13 72.785 49.2932 0.015099 0.8805 38255.796
SFSA [44] 1.0920/24 (65.50%)
1.0537/30
0.8017/13 72.7869 49.2930 0.0150998 0.8805 38256.794
QOCSOS [53] 1.0913/24 (65.50%)
1.0537/30
1.1124/6 82.03 57.0394 - 0.8768 43114.968
LSFSA [54] 0.4874/18 (61.12%)
0.8679/30
0.7638/14 73.4 49.9138 0.0151 0.8738 38579.04
SIMBO-Q [55] 1.0415/24 (65.21%)
1.1352/29
0.7708/14 72.8 49.2900 0.0151 0.8804 38263.68
QOSIMBO-Q [55] 1.0965/24 (65.50%)
1.0655/30
0.8246/10 75.540 50.9507 0.0222 0.8365 39703.824
TLBO [56] 1.0311/24 (64.20%)
0.8862/31
0.8808/12 74.101 50.3906 0.0160 0.8656 38899.656
QOTLBO [56] 1.0592/24 (64.88%)
1.0714/29
0.8107/13 75.412 50.6724 - 0.8528 39636.547
KHA [57] 0.8368/25 (64.26%)
0.8410/30
0.875/14 70.64 50.6393 0.00633 0.8939 37128.384
MVO 1.170/24 (66.50%)
1.212/30
0.864/14 70.64 50.6117 0.006463 0.8937 37128.384
ALO 1.183/24 (66.50%)
1.217/30
4.2.2. CASE 2: Three DGs at 0.95 P.F

The optimal location and sizes of the DGs at 0.95 p.f are shown in Table 3. The MVO
has placed three DGs at the 14th, 24th, and 30th bus, whereas the ALO gives the 13th, 24th,
and 30th bus as the optimal locations to place the DGs. The active and reactive power
losses by using the MVO are 27.84 kW and 22.4833 kVAR, respectively, and from the ant
lion optimization, the PL and QL come out to be 27.84 kW and 22.2150 kVAR, respectively.
It may be noted from Table 3 that the proposed techniques provide better results in terms
of the power loss reduction as compared to 28.5 kW from QOSIMBO-Q [55], 29 kW from
SIMBO-Q [55], and 28.53 kW from SFSA [44], QOCSOS [53], and SOS [53]. The annual
energy loss cost is also a minimum while using the proposed techniques as compared
to the others shown in Table 3. The proposed techniques reduce the loss cost to PKR
14632.704, whereas QOSIMBO-Q [55] reduces it to PKR 14979.6, SIMBO-Q [55]to PKR
15242.4, SFSA [44] to PKR 14995.368, and QOCSOS [53] to PKR 14997.470.
The voltage deviation (in p.u.) and voltage stability index (in p.u.) are 0.000278 and
0.9579 from the proposed ALO, 0.0021 and 0.9530 from QOSIMBO-Q [55], 0.00098 and
0.9646 from SIMBO-Q [55], 0.002073 and 0.95298 from SFSA [44], and 0.002078 and 0.9530
from QOCSOS [53], respectively. The VD and VSI obtained by the proposed technique
are optimized than all the other techniques in Table 3, except SIMBO-Q [55] which gives
slightly better results.
Table 3. Result comparison for the IEEE 33-bus system at 0.95 power factor.

Method VD VSI
0.8740/13 28.5 20.7560 0.0021 0.9530 14979.6
QOSIMBO-Q [55] 1.1830/24 (86.49%)
1.3050/30
0.9340/13 29 21.0457 0.00098 0.9646 15242.4
SIMBO-Q [55] 1.1424/24 (86.26%)
1.3781/30
0.8740/13 28.53 20.7580 0.002073 0.95298 14995.368
SFSA [44] 1.1849/24 (86.48%)
1.3048/30
0.8738/13 28.534 20.7567 0.002078 0.9530 14997.470
QOCSOS [53] 1.1838/24 (86.48%)
1.3048/30
0.8738/13 28.534 20.7567 0.002078 0.9530 14997.470
SOS [53] 1.1838/24 (86.48%)
1.3048/30
0.9340/14 27.84 22.4833 0.000329 0.9577 14632.704
MVO 1.2896/24 (86.80%)
1.4831/30
0.9673/13 27.84 22.2150 0.000278 0.9579 14632.704
ALO 1.3050/24 (86.80%)
1.4546/30
4.2.3. Case 3: Three DGs at Optimal P.F

Respecting the base case, the DGs operating at an optimal power factor reduce the
active power loss by almost 94.4%, which is better than the results obtained by using other
techniques, such as the SFSA [44], QOCSOS [53], and ICA/GA [58] that reduce the power
losses by 94.42%, 94.43%, and 94.35%, respectively, as shown in Table 4. Similarly, using the
proposed techniques at the OPF shows a significant improvement in the voltage deviation
and voltage stability index results. The VD (in p.u.) from the ALO and MVO is 0.000461
and 0.000519, respectively, whereas the VSI (in p.u.) comes out to be 0.9805 from the ALO
and 0.9797 from the MVO. The VD is 0.000619 from SFSA [44], 0.000633 from QOCSOS [53],
and 0.0006 from ICA/GA [58], and similarly the VSI from SFSA [44] is 0.9691, 0.9688 from
QOCSOS [53], and 0.9690 from ICA/GA [58]. The annual energy loss cost is reduced to
PKR 6170.54 by the ALO, PKR 6175.8 by the MVO, PKR 6254.64 by the ICA/GA [58], and
PKR 6182.107 by the SFSA [44].
Figure 6 shows the convergence curves of the proposed techniques at the unity power
factor. The proposed ALO can produce a quick and steady convergence which makes it
better than the MVO which shows a relatively slow convergence and takes more numbers
of iterations to reach the optimal point. Figure 7 depicts the effect of the DG installation on
the voltage profile of the distribution system with a different p.f. and the graph shows that
integrating multiple DGs with an optimal p.f. results in a significant voltage improvement.
To decide the best case among the three cases discussed above (the unity p.f, fixed p.f,
and optimal p.f), multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques such as the WSM,
WPM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR are used. Figure 8 shows that on the basis of the evaluations by
each MCDM technique, case 3 (DGs operating at optimal power factors) stands out from
the other cases. The active power loss at each bus for all of the cases can be seen in Figure 9,
and it is clear that PL reduces at every power factor considered with reference to the base
case, but the most reduction can be noted in case 3.
Table 4. Result comparison for the IEEE 33-bus system at optimal power factor.
DG Size/pf PL (kW) QL C AEL

Method Location VD VSI
(MVA) (%PL ) (kVAR) (PKR)
0.8768/0.904 13 11.762 9.9842 0.000619 0.9691 6182.107
SFSA [44] 1.1553/0.892 24 (94.42%)
1.4549/0.716 30
0.8773/0.905 13 11.741 9.7548 0.000633 0.9688 6171.069
QOCSOS [53] 1.1884/0.900 24 (94.43%)
1.4434/0.713 30
0.8794/0.90 13 11.9 9.7611 0.0006 0.9690 6254.64
ICA/GA [58] 1.1879/0.90 24 (94.35%)
1.4496/0.71 30
0.9868/0.88 13 11.75 11.4238 0.000519 0.9797 6175.8
MVO 1.3175/0.91 24 (94.42%)
1.6093/0.71 30
0.9735/0.90 13 11.74 11.2571 0.000461 0.9805 6170.544
ALO 1.3232/0.90 24 (94.43%)
1.5932/0.71 30
Figure 6. Convergence curve of ALO and MVO at unity p.f for IEEE 33-bus system.
Table 5 illustrates the statistical analysis across ten runs to demonstrate the efficacy of the
proposed ant lion optimization (ALO) and multiverse optimization (MVO) based on the best,
average, and worst values for the power losses, and the best value obtained by the proposed
ALO is 70.64, 27.84, and 11.74 at the unity, 0.95, and optimal power factor, respectively.
The average values obtained by the ALO are 70.70, 29.60, and 16.84 at the respective p.f.
which are better than the MVO which gives 72.87, 30.25, and 16.21, respectively. Figure 10
shows the graphical aspect of the statistical analysis discussed in Table 5, and it can be clearly
seen that the ALO performs statistically better as compared to the MVO.
Figure 7. Voltage profile at various p.f for 33-bus system.
Figure 8. Cases evaluation for IEEE 33-bus system using various MCDM techniques.
Figure 9. Active power loss at each bus considering various p.fs for IEEE 33-bus system.
Table 5. Statistical analysis for ALO and MVO for IEEE 33-bus system.
Cases CBest CAverage CWorst

ALO 70.64 70.70 71.17
Unity p.f
MVO 70.64 72.87 76.21
ALO 27.84 29.60 35.74
0.95 p.f
MVO 27.84 30.25 36.68
ALO 11.74 16.84 23.80
Optimal p.f
MVO 11.75 16.21 25.14
Figure 10. Graphical representation of statistical analysis for IEEE 33-bus system.
4.3. IEEE 69-Bus System

The second test system used to test the validity of the proposed techniques is the IEEE
69-bus system that has 69 buses and 68 branches. Its active and reactive power demands
are 3.80 MW and 2.69 MVAr, respectively. The number of DGs are assumed to be three,
and the maximum iteration is 150 for each case. The base-case results (without the DG
installation) are shown in Table 1, whereas Figure 11 shows a single-line diagram of the
69-bus test system.
Figure 11. SLD of IEEE 69-bus system.
4.3.1. Case 1: Three DGs at Unity P.F

A multi-objective function is examined for the simultaneous minimization of the real
power loss, enhancement of the voltage profile, and voltage stability index to highlight the
efficacy of the presented methodologies. The findings of the ALO and MVO simulations
at the unity power factor are compared to the other approaches in Table 6. The real
power reduction achieved by the ALO (68.68 kW) and MVO (68.88 kW) is optimized as
compared to the SFSA [44] (69.428 kW), QOCSOS [53] (69.428 kW), KHA [57] (69.563 kW),
QOSIMBO-Q [55] (71 kW), MINLP [1] (69.67 kW), and QOTLBO [56] (71.625 kW). Similarly,
in terms of the proposed voltage deviation and voltage stability index techniques, the ALO
(0.001291 p.u. and 0.9678 p.u.) and MVO (0.001277 p.u. and 0.9676 p.u.) provide better
results than the SFSA [44] (0.005185 p.u. and 0.9186 p.u.), QOCSOS [53] (0.005195 p.u. and
0.9186 p.u.), QOSIMBO-Q [55] (0.0071p.u. and 0.8984 p.u.), and QOTLBO [56] (0.0062 p.u.
and 0.9196 p.u). The annual energy loss cost is reduced to PKR 36098.208 which is better
than PKR 36491.359 by SFSA [44], PKR 36491.356 by QOCSOS [53], PKR 36562.312 by
KHA [57], and PKR 36618.552 by MINLP [1].
Table 6. Result comparison for the IEEE 69-bus system at unity power factor.

Method VD VSI
0.5273/11 69.428 34.6278 0.005185 0.9186 36491.356
SFSA [44] 0.3805/18 (69.14%)
1.7198/61
0.5269/11 69.428 34.6283 0.005195 0.9186 36491.356
QOCSOS [53] 0.3803/18 (69.14%)
1.7190/61
0.4962/12 69.563 34.6515 - 0.9185 36562.312
KHA [57] 0.3113/22 (69.08%)
1.7354/61
0.8336/9 71 35.4736 0.0071 0.8984 37317.6
QOSIMBO-Q [55] 0.4511/18 (68.44%)
1.5000/61
Table 6. Cont.

Method VD VSI
1.7200/61 69.67 34.6286 - - 36618.552
MINLP [1] 0.3800/17 (69.07%)
0.5300/11
0.5334/18 71.625 35.3462 0.0062 0.9196 37646.1
QOTLBO [56] 1.1986/61 (68.17%)
0.5672/63
1.9400/61 68.88 35.2731 0.001277 0.9676 36302.328
MVO 0.4610/66 (69.33%)
0.447/17
1.925/61 68.68 35.1813 0.001291 0.9678 36098.208
ALO 0.427/17 (66.50%)
0.525/11
4.3.2. Case 2: Three DGs at 0.95 P.F

Table 7 presents a comparison of the findings of the IEEE 69-bus test system at 0.95 p.f.
It can be seen that the power losses are reduced to 90.33% and 90.35% by using the proposed
MVO and ALO, respectively, which are better than 89.87% from QOSIMBO-Q [55] and
89.73% from SIMBO-Q [55]. Similarly, the VD (in p.u.) and VSI (in p.u.) obtained by the
MVO (0.00019 and 0.9870) and ALO (0.00024 and 0.9885) are better than the QOSIMBO-
Q [55] (0.00069 and 0.9741) and SIMBO-Q [55] (0.00075 and 0.9727). It may be noted from
Table 7 that the proposed techniques provide preferable results in terms of the reactive
power loss (QL ) and annual energy loss cost (CAEL ) as compared to other techniques.
The QL is reduced to 14.1087kVAR by ALO, 11405.52kVAR by MVO, 12141.36kVAR by
SIMBO-Q [55], and 11983.68kVAR by QOSIMBO-Q [55].
Table 7. Result comparison for the IEEE 69-bus system at 0.95 power factor.

Method VD VSI
0.4497/64 22.8 14.6602 0.00069 0.9741 11983.68
QOSIMBO-Q [55] 0.6135/17 (89.87%)
1.5789/61
0.5954/19 23.1 14.7630 0.00075 0.9727 12141.36
SIMBO-Q [55] 1.5789/61 (89.73%)
0.4442/64
2.000/61 21.70 13.9685 0.00019 0.9870 11405.52
MVO 0.6674/11 (90.33%)
0.4947/19
0.8358/11 21.67 14.1087 0.00024 0.9885 11389.752
ALO 0.4316/21 (90.35%)
2.000/61
4.3.3. Case 3: Three DGs at Optimal P.F

In this scenario, the real power losses are reduced to 97.16% and 97.15% as compared
to the base case, whereas the QL is reduced to 6.9941 kVAR and 7.0149 kVAR by using the
MVO and ALO, respectively. Table 8 shows a comparison of the real and reactive power
loss reduction with other techniques from the literature, such as the HHO [2] and SFSA [44],
and the efficacy of the proposed techniques is very clear. The voltage deviation (in p.u.) and
voltage stability index (in p.u.) are also improved by using the proposed ALO (0.000329
and 0.9937) and MVO (0.000319 and 0.9929). Table 8 shows a comparison of the results from
the proposed methods with the HHO [2] and SFSA [44]. In comparison to the HHO [2],
which reduces the active power loss to 6.58 kW, the reactive power loss to 7.5492 kVAR,
and the yearly energy loss cost to 3458.448 PKR, the proposed solutions give a better loss
reduction and cost reduction. Alternatively, the SFSA [44] has a better PL reduction of
4.298 kW and QL a reduction of 6.7597 kVAR as compared to the suggested techniques, but
the VSI is 0.9773 p.u which is lower than the ALO (0.9937 p.u) and MVO (0.9929 p.u).
Figure 12 shows the convergence curve of the proposed techniques at unity power
factors for IEEE 69-bus system. The proposed ALO can produce a quick and steady
convergence. The multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques such as the WSM,
WPM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR are used to choose the best case among the different power
factors (the unity p.f, fixed p.f, and optimal p.f) by treating all the objectives equally and
assigning equal weights to them. Figure 13 depicts the effect of the DG installation on the
voltage profile of the distribution system with a different p.f. and the graph shows that
integrating multiple DGs with the optimal p.f. results in a significant voltage improvement.
Figure 14 illustrates that, based on the evaluations by each MCDM technique, case 3
(DGs operating at optimal power factor) stands out from the others. The active power loss
at each bus for all of the cases can be seen in Figure 15, and it is clear that PL reduces at
every power factor considered with reference to the base case, but the most reduction can
be noted in case 3. Table 9 illustrates the statistical analysis across ten runs to demonstrate
the efficacy of the proposed ant lion optimization (ALO) and multiverse optimization
(MVO) based on the best, average, and worst values for the power losses. The best value
obtained by the proposed ALO is 68.68, 21.67, and 6.38 at the unity, 0.95, and optimal power
factor, respectively. The average values obtained by the ALO are 70.17, 24.62, and 11.02
at the respective p.f. which are better than the MVO which gives 71.06, 24.88, and 11.93,
respectively. Figure 16 shows the graphical aspect of the statistical analysis discussed in
Table 9, and it can be clearly seen that the ALO performs statistically better as compared to
the MVO.
Figure 12. Convergence curve of ALO and MVO at unity p.f for IEEE 69-bus system.
Figure 13. Voltage profile at various p.f for 69-bus system.
Figure 14. Cases evaluation for IEEE 69-bus system using various MCDM techniques.
Table 8. Result comparison for the IEEE 69-bus system at optimal power factor.
DG Size/pf PL (kW) QL C AEL

Method Location VD VSI
(MVA) (%PL ) (kVAR) (PKR)
0.4711/0.57 17 6.58 7.5492 - - 3458.448
HHO [2] 2.0169/0.76 61 (97.07%)
0.7191/0.97 66
0.4711/0.819 11 4.298 6.7597 0.000116 0.9773 2259.028
SFSA [44] 2.0169/0.833 21 (98.09%)
0.7191/0.818 61
0.5231/0.82 17 6.36 6.9941 0.000319 0.9929 3342.816
MVO 0.8275/0.80 11 (97.16%)
2.0123/0.81 61
0.4672/0.82 21 6.38 7.0149 0.000329 0.9937 3353.328
ALO 1.9998/0.80 61 (97.15%)
0.8609/0.80 11
Figure 15. Active power loss at each bus considering various p.fs for IEEE 33-bus system.
Table 9. Statistical analysis for ALO and MVO for IEEE 69-bus system.
Cases CBest CAverage CWorst

ALO 68.68 70.17 73.04
Unity p.f
MVO 68.88 71.06 73.36
ALO 21.67 24.62 28.44
0.95 p.f
MVO 21.70 24.88 27.61
ALO 6.38 11.02 16.02
Optimal p.f
MVO 6.36 11.93 18.11
Figure 16. Graphical representation of statistical analysis for IEEE 69-bus system.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the proposed ALO and MVO were adopted to reduce the power loss, volt-
age profile, VSI, energy loss cost, and carbon emissions in ADNs. The MCDM techniques
such as the WSM, WPM, TOPSIS, and VIKOR were used to solve the multi-objective issue
and choose the optimum scenario. The suggested ALO was compared to the MVO based on
a statistical analysis and a convergence curve. The results showed that the ALO has a better
and faster convergence than the MVO and is superior in attaining the optimal DG allocation
in the ADN. The techniques suggested have been tested on standard IEEE 33- and 69-bus
systems at different p.f. levels of operation. The results obtained by the proposed algorithm
revealed that the highest loss reduction in the IEEE 33- and 69-bus systems was 94.43% and
97.16%, respectively, and the maximum VSI was 0.9805 p.u and 0.9937 p.u, respectively;
moreover, the minimum VD for the given test systems was 0.00019 p.u. For both test
systems, CAEL gives the highest reduction in case 3 as 6170.5 PKR and 3353.3 PKR from
110849 PKR and 118049.8 PKR, respectively, whereas the carbon emissions also show a
significant reduction. Among the many DG operation modes, the scenario of the DGs
operating at the optimal power factor has been shown to significantly improve the results.
Future research should investigate the proper distribution of DGs from the perspective
of varying levels of DG penetration at dynamic loading. In addition, the effects of the inter-
mittent nature of a renewable DG could be mitigated by the use of uncertainty modeling.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.A.A.K., A.A. and Z.A.K.; methodology, S.A.A.K., Z.A.K.
and A.A.; software, M.S.S.; validation, M.S.S., S.A.A.K. and Z.A.K.; formal analysis, M.S.S. and A.A.;
investigation, M.S.S.; resources, Z.A.K. and A.A.; data curation, M.S.S. and A.A.; writing— original draft
preparation, M.S.S. and S.A.A.K.; writing—review and editing, Z.A.K., A.A. and D.R.S.; visualization,
M.S.S.; supervision, S.A.A.K. and Z.A.K.; project administration, S.A.A.K., Z.A.K. and A.A.; funding
acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah University under
Project Number No. R-2023-34.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah
University for supporting this work under Project Number No. R-2023-34.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations were used in this paper.
DG Distributed generation
p.f Power factor
ADN Active distribution network
MCDM Multi-criteria decision making
OADG Optimal allocation of distributed generation
PL Active power loss
QL Reactive power loss
VD Voltage deviation
VSI Voltage stability index
CE Carbon emissions
GHG Greenhouse gas
C AEL Annual energy loss cost
S AEL Annual energy loss cost savings
p.u Per unit
PLC Power loss cost
PLS Power loss savings
WSM Weighted sum method
MILP Mixed-integer linear programming
WPM Weighted product method
ALO Ant lion optimization
MVO Multiverse optimization

SOOP Single-objective optimization problem
MOOP Multi objective optimization problem
Vre f Reference voltage (1.0 p.u)
µe Emissions rate
Ib Branch current
Xb Branch reactence
PGen Active power generation
Q Gen Reactive power generation
LSF Load sensitivity factor
DERs Distributed energy resources
GE Energy generated by grid
DGE Energy generated by DG
µE Rate of energy ($/kWh)
Iter_max Maximum number of iterations
rand Random number
norinf Normal inflation
curr_iter Current iteration
OPF Optimal power factor
UPF Unity power factor
References
1. Kaur, S.; Kumbhar, G.; Sharma, J. A MINLP technique for optimal placement of multiple DG units in distribution systems. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 63, 609–617. [CrossRef]
2. Selim, A.; Kamel, S.; Alghamdi, A.S.; Jurado, F. Optimal placement of DGs in distribution system using an improved harris
hawks optimizer based on single-and multi-objective approaches. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 52815–52829. [CrossRef]
3. Ali, A.; Raisz, D.; Mahmoud, K. Optimal oversizing of utility-owned renewable DG inverter for voltage rise prevention in MV
distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 105, 500–513. [CrossRef]
4. Mirjalili, S. The ant lion optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015, 83, 80–98. [CrossRef]
5. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Hatamlou, A. Multi-verse optimizer: A nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural
Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 495–513. [CrossRef]
6. Chopra, N.; Mehta, S. Multi-objective optimum generation scheduling using Ant Lion Optimization. In Proceedings of the 2015
Annual IEEE India Conference (INDICON), New Delhi, India, 17–20 December 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6.
7. Petrović, M.; Petronijević, J.; Mitić, M.; Vuković, N.; Plemić, A.; Miljković, Z.; Babić, B. The ant lion optimization algorithm for
flexible process planning. J. Prod. Eng. 2015, 18, 65–68.
8. Talatahari, S. Optimum design of skeletal structures using ant lion optimizer. Iran Univ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 13–25.
9. Ehsan, A.; Yang, Q. Optimal integration and planning of renewable distributed generation in the power distribution networks: A
review of analytical techniques. Appl. Energy 2018, 210, 44–59. [CrossRef]
10. Hung, D.Q.; Mithulananthan, N.; Bansal, R. Analytical expressions for DG allocation in primary distribution networks. IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 2010, 25, 814–820. [CrossRef]
11. Gözel, T.; Hocaoglu, M.H. An analytical method for the sizing and siting of distributed generators in radial systems. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 2009, 79, 912–918. [CrossRef]
12. Hung, D.Q.; Mithulananthan, N. Multiple distributed generator placement in primary distribution networks for loss reduction.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 60, 1700–1708. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, S.H.; Park, J.W. Selection of optimal location and size of multiple distributed generations by using Kalman filter algorithm.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2009, 24, 1393–1400.
14. Ochoa, L.F.; Harrison, G.P. Minimizing energy losses: Optimal accommodation and smart operation of renewable distributed
generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2010, 26, 198–205. [CrossRef]
15. Rueda-Medina, A.C.; Franco, J.F.; Rider, M.J.; Padilha-Feltrin, A.; Romero, R. A mixed-integer linear programming approach for
optimal type, size and allocation of distributed generation in radial distribution systems. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2013, 97, 133–143.
[CrossRef]
16. Abu-Mouti, F.S.; El-Hawary, M. Optimal distributed generation allocation and sizing in distribution systems via artificial bee
colony algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2011, 26, 2090–2101. [CrossRef]
17. Shukla, T.; Singh, S.; Srinivasarao, V.; Naik, K. Optimal sizing of distributed generation placed on radial distribution systems.
Electr. Power Components Syst. 2010, 38, 260–274. [CrossRef]
18. Gomez-Gonzalez, M.; López, A.; Jurado, F. Optimization of distributed generation systems using a new discrete PSO and OPF.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2012, 84, 174–180. [CrossRef]
19. Kansal, S.; Kumar, V.; Tyagi, B. Hybrid approach for optimal placement of multiple DGs of multiple types in distribution
networks. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 75, 226–235. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, C.; Nehrir, M.H. Analytical approaches for optimal placement of distributed generation sources in power systems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2004, 19, 2068–2076. [CrossRef]
21. Borghetti, A. A mixed-integer linear programming approach for the computation of the minimum-losses radial configuration of
electrical distribution networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 27, 1264–1273. [CrossRef]
22. Selim, A.; Kamel, S.; Mohamed, A.A.; Elattar, E.E. Optimal Allocation of Multiple Types of Distributed Generations in Radial
Distribution Systems Using a Hybrid Technique. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6644. [CrossRef]
23. Soroudi, A.; Afrasiab, M. Binary PSO-based dynamic multi-objective model for distributed generation planning under uncertainty.
IET Renew. Power Gener. 2012, 6, 67–78. [CrossRef]
24. Kumar, S.; Mandal, K.K.; Chakraborty, N. Optimal placement of different types of DG units considering various load models
using novel multiobjective quasi-oppositional grey wolf optimizer. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 4845–4864. [CrossRef]
25. Khalesi, N.; Rezaei, N.; Haghifam, M.R. DG allocation with application of dynamic programming for loss reduction and reliability
improvement. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2011, 33, 288–295. [CrossRef]
26. Moradi, M.H.; Abedini, M. A combination of genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for optimal DG location and
sizing in distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2012, 34, 66–74. [CrossRef]
27. Moradi, M.; Abedini, M. A novel method for optimal DG units capacity and location in Microgrids. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 2016, 75, 236–244. [CrossRef]
28. Mohamed Imran, A.; Kowsalya, M. Optimal size and siting of multiple distributed generators in distribution system using
bacterial foraging optimization. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2014, 15, 58–65. [CrossRef]
29. Kefayat, M.; Ara, A.L.; Niaki, S.N. A hybrid of ant colony optimization and artificial bee colony algorithm for probabilistic
optimal placement and sizing of distributed energy resources. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 92, 149–161. [CrossRef]
30. Harrison, G.P.; Piccolo, A.; Siano, P.; Wallace, A.R. Hybrid GA and OPF evaluation of network capacity for distributed generation
connections. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2008, 78, 392–398. [CrossRef]
31. Khatod, D.K.; Pant, V.; Sharma, J. Evolutionary programming based optimal placement of renewable distributed generators.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 28, 683–695. [CrossRef]
32. Celli, G.; Ghiani, E.; Mocci, S.; Pilo, F. A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for the sizing and siting of distributed generation.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2005, 20, 750–757. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, L.; Singh, C. Reliability-constrained optimum placement of reclosers and distributed generators in distribution networks
using an ant colony system algorithm. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 2008, 38, 757–764. [CrossRef]
34. Ramadan, A.; Ebeed, M.; Kamel, S.; Nasrat, L. Optimal allocation of renewable energy resources considering uncertainty in load
demand and generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Power Electronics and Renewable Energy (CPERE),
Aswan City, Egypt, 23–25 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 124–128.
35. Prasad, C.H.; Subbaramaiah, K.; Sujatha, P. Cost–benefit analysis for optimal DG placement in distribution systems by using
elephant herding optimization algorithm. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 2019, 6, 1–12. [CrossRef]
36. Remha, S.; Chettih, S.; Arif, S. A novel multi-objective bat algorithm for optimal placement and sizing of distributed generation
in radial distributed systems. Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2018, 15, 736–746. [CrossRef]
37. Hemeida, M.G.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Mohamed, A.A.A.; Alkhalaf, S.; El-Dine, A.M.B. Optimal allocation of distributed generators DG
based Manta Ray Foraging Optimization algorithm (MRFO). Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 609–619. [CrossRef]
38. Nagaballi, S.; Kale, V.S. Pareto optimality and game theory approach for optimal deployment of DG in radial distribution system
to improve techno-economic benefits. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 92, 106234. [CrossRef]
39. Oda, E.S.; Abd El Hamed, A.M.; Ali, A.; Elbaset, A.A.; Abd El Sattar, M.; Ebeed, M. Stochastic optimal planning of distribution
system considering integrated photovoltaic-based DG and DSTATCOM under uncertainties of loads and solar irradiance. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 26541–26555. [CrossRef]
40. Sun, C.; Mi, Z.; Ren, H.; Jing, Z.; Lu, J.; Watts, D. Multi-dimensional indexes for the sustainability evaluation of an active
distribution network. Energies 2019, 12, 369. [CrossRef]
41. Kamble, S.G.; Vadirajacharya, K.; Patil, U.V. Decision Making in Power Distribution System Reconfiguration by Blended Biased
and Unbiased Weightage Method. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2019, 8, 20. [CrossRef]
42. Paterakis, N.G.; Mazza, A.; Santos, S.F.; Erdinç, O.; Chicco, G.; Bakirtzis, A.G.; Catalão, J.P. Multi-objective reconfiguration of
radial distribution systems using reliability indices. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 31, 1048–1062. [CrossRef]
43. Tanwar, S.S.; Khatod, D. Techno-economic and environmental approach for optimal placement and sizing of renewable DGs in
distribution system. Energy 2017, 127, 52–67. [CrossRef]
44. Nguyen, T.P.; Vo, D.N. A novel stochastic fractal search algorithm for optimal allocation of distributed generators in radial
distribution systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 70, 773–796. [CrossRef]
45. Kayal, P.; Chanda, C. Placement of wind and solar based DGs in distribution system for power loss minimization and voltage
stability improvement. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 53, 795–809. [CrossRef]
46. Anbuchandran, S.; Rengaraj, R.; Bhuvanesh, A.; Karuppasamypandiyan, M. A multi-objective optimum distributed generation
placement using firefly algorithm. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2022, 17, 945–953. [CrossRef]
47. Kazmi, S.A.A.; Ameer Khan, U.; Ahmad, W.; Hassan, M.; Ibupoto, F.A.; Bukhari, S.B.A.; Ali, S.; Malik, M.M.; Shin, D.R. Multiple
(TEES)-Criteria-Based Sustainable Planning Approach for Mesh-Configured Distribution Mechanisms across Multiple Load
Growth Horizons. Energies 2021, 14, 3128. [CrossRef]
48. Chiradeja, P.; Ramakumar, R. An approach to quantify the technical benefits of distributed generation. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 2004, 19, 764–773. [CrossRef]
49. Baldwin, S. Carbon footprint of electricity generation. Lond. Parliam. Off. Sci. Technol. 2006, 268, 1–4.
50. Scharf, I.; Subach, A.; Ovadia, O. Foraging behaviour and habitat selection in pit-building antlion larvae in constant light or dark
conditions. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76, 2049–2057. [CrossRef]
51. Scharf, I.; Ovadia, O. Factors influencing site abandonment and site selection in a sit-and-wait predator: A review of pit-building
antlion larvae. J. Insect Behav. 2006, 19, 197–218. [CrossRef]
52. Nischal, M.M.; Mehta, S. Optimal load dispatch using ant lion optimization. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2015, 5, 10–19.
53. Truong, K.H.; Nallagownden, P.; Elamvazuthi, I.; Vo, D.N. A quasi-oppositional-chaotic symbiotic organisms search algorithm
for optimal allocation of DG in radial distribution networks. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 88, 106067. [CrossRef]
54. Injeti, S.K.; Kumar, N.P. A novel approach to identify optimal access point and capacity of multiple DGs in a small, medium and
large scale radial distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 45, 142–151. [CrossRef]
55. Sharma, S.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Bhattacharya, A. Quasi-Oppositional Swine Influenza Model Based Optimization with Quarantine
for optimal allocation of DG in radial distribution network. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 74, 348–373. [CrossRef]
56. Sultana, S.; Roy, P.K. Multi-objective quasi-oppositional teaching learning based optimization for optimal location of distributed
generator in radial distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 63, 534–545. [CrossRef]
57. Sultana, S.; Roy, P.K. Krill herd algorithm for optimal location of distributed generator in radial distribution system. Appl. Soft
Comput. 2016, 40, 391–404. [CrossRef]
58. Moradi, M.H.; Zeinalzadeh, A.; Mohammadi, Y.; Abedini, M. An efficient hybrid method for solving the optimal sitting and sizing
problem of DG and shunt capacitor banks simultaneously based on imperialist competitive algorithm and genetic algorithm. Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 54, 101–111. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability 15 04306 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 04306 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 04306 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054306 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Development of proposed technique (adapted from [9]).

3.1. Objective Functions

Figure 2. A representative branch of RDS (adapted from [44]).

3.1.1. Active Power Loss (PL )

OF1 = min( PL ) (1)

Mathematically, (PL ) is expressed in [44] as

3.1.2. Reactive Power Loss (Q L )

OF2 = min( Q L ) (5)

In [45], reactive power loss is calculated by

3.1.3. Voltage Stability Index (VSI)

OF3 = max (lowest(VSIb )) (7)

VSIb =Va4 − 4( Pb R ab + Qb Xab ) ∗ Va2

3.1.4. Voltage Deviation (VD )

OF4 = min(VD ) (9)

3.1.5. Annual Energy Loss Cost (C AEL )

OF5 = min(C AEL ) (11)

Equation (12) is used to calculate energy loss cost [47].

3.1.6. Annual Energy Loss Cost Saving (S AEL )

S AEL = C AEL− bc − C AEL− dg (13)

3.1.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE )

3.2. Operational Constraints

3.2.1. Equality Constraints

PGen = Pload + Ploss (18)

QGen = Qload + Qloss (19)

3.2.2. Inequality Constraints

3.3. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

3.3.1. Weighted Sum Method (WSM)

3.3.2. Weighted Product Method (WPM)

where Pj WPM indicates the weighted product score.

3.3.3. Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

The weighted normalized decision matrix Xjk is calculated as:

The best solution can be determined by (30).

Njk = (Skb − S jk )/(Skb − Skw ) (33)

Now, calculate the VIKOR index by the equation given below

3.4. Overview of Optimization Techniques

3.4.1. Ant Lion Optimization

Random Walk of Agents

X (t) = [0, csum(2r (t1 ) − 1), csum(2r (t2 )−

where csum means cumulative sum and r(t) can be defined as

Algorithm 1: Pseudo Code of ALO

Zit = AntLtj + Z t (41)

Sliding Ants toward Ant Lions

Capturing Prey and Trap Building

3.4.2. Multiverse optimization

y1i y2i y3i . . . yin

Figure 3. Flow chart of proposed ALO.

iter (WEPMAX − WEPMI N )

Figure 4. Flow chart of MVO.

Algorithm 2: Pseudo Code of MVO

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. TEE Parameters Evaluation

Table 1. Evaluation of technical, economical, and environmental indices.

Technical Economical Environmental

4.2. IEEE 33-Bus System

Figure 5. SLD of IEEE 33-bus system.

4.2.1. CASE 1: Three DGs at Unity P.F

DG Size/Bus PL (kW) QL C AEL