Article

Multi Dimension-Based Optimal Allocation of Uncertain

Renewable Distributed Generation Outputs with Seasonal
Source-Load Power Uncertainties in Electrical Distribution
Network Using Marine Predator Algorithm
Nasreddine Belbachir 1, Mohamed Zellagui 2,*, Samir Settoul 3, Claude Ziad El-Bayeh 4 and Ragab A. El-Sehiemy 5

1 Department of Electrotechnics, University of Mostaganem, Mostaganem 27000, Algeria

2 Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Batna 2, Batna 05078, Algeria
3 Department of Electrotechnics, University of Constantine 1, Constantine 27017, Algeria

4 Canada Excellence Research Chairs Team, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada

5 Department of Electrical Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El Sheikh 6860404, Egypt

* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +213-557-730094

Abstract: In the last few years, the integration of renewable distributed generation (RDG) in the
electrical distribution network (EDN) has become a favorable solution that guarantees and keeps a
satisfying balance between electrical production and consumption of energy. In this work, various
metaheuristic algorithms were implemented to perform the validation of their efficiency in deliver-
ing the optimal allocation of both RDGs based on multiple photovoltaic distributed generation
Citation: Belbachir, N.; Zellagui, M.; (PVDG) and wind turbine distributed generation (WTDG) to the EDN while considering the uncer-
Settoul, S.; El-Bayeh, C.Z.; tainties of their electrical energy output as well as the load demand’s variation during all the year’s
El-Sehiemy, R.A. Multi seasons. The convergence characteristics and the results reveal that the marine predator algorithm
Dimension-Based Optimal
was effectively the quickest and best technique to attain the best solutions after a small number of
Allocation of Uncertain Renewable
iterations compared to the rest of the utilized algorithms, including particle swarm optimization,
Distributed Generation Outputs
the whale optimization algorithm, moth flame optimizer algorithms, and the slime mold algorithm.
with Seasonal Source-Load Power
Meanwhile, as an example, the marine predator algorithm minimized the seasonal active losses
Uncertainties in Electrical
Distribution Network Using Marine
down to 56.56% and 56.09% for both applied networks of IEEE 33 and 69-bus, respectively. To reach
Predator Algorithm. Energies 2023, those results, a multi-objective function (MOF) was developed to simultaneously minimize the tech-
16, 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nical indices of the total active power loss index (APLI) and reactive power loss index (RPLI), volt-
en16041595 age deviation index (VDI), operating time index (OTI), and coordination time interval index (CTII)
of overcurrent relay in the test system EDNs, in order to approach the practical case, in which there
Academic Editors: Rene Prenc,
are too many parameters to be optimized, considering different constraints, during the uncertain
Dubravko Franković and Vitomir
Komen
time and variable data of load and energy production.

Received: 3 January 2023 Keywords: renewable distributed generation; hybrid PVDG-WTDG units; electrical distribution
Revised: 1 February 2023
network; seasonal uncertainties; marine predator algorithm
Accepted: 2 February 2023
Published: 5 February 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. 1.1. Motivation
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
The quick advancement in the technologies of renewable distributed generations in
This article is an open access article
various categories and capacities is the reconfiguration of the electrical distribution net-
distributed under the terms and
work in significant ways. The DG-based renewable sources coupled directly to the EDN
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
deliver energy to the customer and support and supply the EDN, although they show
(https://creativecommons.org/license
diverse economic and technological challenges and advantages of sustainable RDG tech-
s/by/4.0/). nologies when integrating into the EDN [1]. The presence of the sources of photovoltaic

Energies 2023, 16, 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041595 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 1595 2 of 27

(PV) and wind turbines (WT) is getting a good purchase on the EDN’s future roadmap
[2].
If the mentioned energy sources show neither pollution nor exhaustion, they are also
meant to be nearly the only source for the long-term infrastructure’s energy supplies [3].
Added to that, the RDGs reveal plenty of advantages that may be considered in addition
to the clean energy provided; they can contribute to the mitigation of either active and
reactive losses, additionally enhancing the system’s voltage and protection. Otherwise,
the biggest part of DG-based renewable sources comprises infrequent output power.
The planning of EDN is obstructed by the unpredictable power generation of non-
transmitted renewable distributed generation (RDG), the load fluctuations, the growth in
demand, and the prices of the electricity market. An efficient model of the uncertainties is
requested to guarantee the optimal presence of the RDGs in the EDN [4]. Linking the RDG
units to existing electrical distribution networks could create plenty of trouble, such as
raising the system’s power fluctuations and losses, under the condition of bad sizing and
location [5]. According to the uncertain characteristics of power generation, the integra-
tion of DG units-based renewable sources may pose different challenges. The planning
feature of RDGs aims to determine the proper allocation of favorable products including
the smallest quantity of environmental effects [6].

1.2. Literature Review

Plenty of optimization algorithms were used optimally allocate RDG into the EDN
when considering the charge power demand and output power generation uncertain-ty,
based on many objective functions. Among them are: applying the particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO) algorithm to minimize power loss and enhance the voltage profiles con-
sidering a new voltage stability index [7]; an improved PSO algorithm for maximizing the
RDG allocation project’s net profit [8]; a coefficient PSO for minimizing the total losses of
energy [9]; applying the algorithm of hybrid tabu search PSO for minimizing the cost [10];
the adaptive genetic algorithm to mitigate the network loss of power and to maximize the
bus voltage deviation [11]; the phasor PSO algorithm to reduce yearly economic loss in
the practical distribution system in Portuguese [12]; and the embedded genetic algorithm
to minimize the prices of electricity [13]. Others include the algorithm of adaptive differ-
ential evolution for minimizing voltage deviation and the active losses [14]; the water cy-
cle algorithm for reducing the multi-objective function based on techno-economic param-
eters [15]; applying the algorithm of heuristic moment matching for maximizing the ob-
jective of present net value [16]; the imperialist competitive algorithm to minimize active
power loss and ameliorate voltage stability [17]; applying the algorithm of lightning at-
tachment procedure optimization for reduction of power losses [18]; the algorithm of de-
centralized energy market trading to maximize the surplus of RDG [19]; the grasshopper
optimization algorithm to improve reliability, voltage profiles, and economic interests
[20]; the algorithm of big bang–big crunch for minimizing different parameters [21]; the
strength pareto evolutionary algorithm 2 to reduce the active losses, operation annual
costs, and emissions of pollutant gas [22]; and applied teaching learning based optimiza-
tion for the aim of reducing the losses in power and voltage deviation index [23].
Recently, the application of the following algorithms have been used: the stochastic
ranking algorithm to reduce power loss, voltage deviation, and cost, and also to maximize
the rate of RDG penetration [24]; applied the equilibrium optimizer algorithm for mitigat-
ing the active power losses, the voltage deviation of system, and the total cost and emis-
sions [25]; the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-2 to per-form the optimization of
the system operation, reliability, and emission costs [26]; using the spring search algo-
rithm to perform the optimization of total emissions, voltage deviation, energy costs, and
active losses [27]; applying the grey wolf optimizer to optimize the multiple objective
functions represented as the total of various technical in-dices [28]; the algorithm of affine
arithmetic optimization for minimizing power losses [29]; the Harris hawks optimizer
to mitigate active loss, ameliorate system stability, voltage, and savings on the yearly costs
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 3 of 27

[30]; the artificial hummingbird algorithm, to mitigate the power losses, enhance voltage
stability, voltage deviation reduction, and yearly economic savings [31].

1.3. Contributions of This Article

In this work, the problem of RDG’s allocation was solved when utilizing the recent
metaheuristic technique of the marine predator algorithm (MPA), which is one of the new-
est optimization techniques that simulates the foraging behavior and movement of marine
predators [32]. Recently, various researchers applied the MPA algorithm to different
power system problems: solving the combined heat and power economic dispatch prob-
lem in [33], solving single- and multi-objective optimal power flow problems in [34], the
optimal reactive power dispatch problem with high penetration of RDGs in [35], the pro-
cess of optimizing the simultaneous network reconfiguration and DG allocation in EDS in
[36,37], frequency regulation for automatic generation control in the multi-microgrid sys-
tem in [38], stability of frequency in power systems integrated with wind energy in [39],
and extracting the optimized parameters of three-photovoltaic solar cell models based on
the three-diode model in [40].
Otherwise, the MPA has been compared with these algorithms: the whale optimiza-
tion algorithm (WOA) [41], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [42], the moth flame opti-
mizer (MFO) algorithm [43], and the slime mould algorithm (SMA) [44], to optimally lo-
cate and size many types of DG units-based PV and WT sources to obtain in the EDN
when taking into consideration the uncertainties of output power from RDGs, as well as
the load demand during all the year’s seasons.
The new proposed multi-objective function (MOF) was devoted to simultaneously
minimizing the various technical indices: APLI, RPLI, VDI, OTI, and CTII of the primary
and backup relays located in the distribution network. The main contributions of this
study can be summarized as follows:
- Application of several recent optimization algorithms for solving the multi-dimen-
sion-based allocation problem of RDG;
- Assessing the performance of the tested algorithm based on technical multi-objective
functions;
- The validation is carried out on two test systems;
- The uncertainty of RDG output is modeled for different operating conditions;
- The load uncertainty is modeled under different operating seasons to clarify the con-
tribution.

1.4. Organization of the Article

The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows: Section 2 describes the
uncertainty modelling of RDG sources; Section 3 represents the multi-dimensional frame-
work for operating requirements of EDN; Section 4 contains the application and obtained
results; and Section 5 presents the main findings and conclusions.

2. Uncertainty Models of Load and RDG Sources

2.1. Load Demand Uncertainties
The generic mathematical modeling of the active and reactive power demand uncer-
tainty is represented with Equations (1) and (2), respectively [45,46] as:
𝑃 (𝑡) = 𝜆(𝑡) × 𝑃 (1)

𝑄 (𝑡) = 𝜆(𝑡) × 𝑄 (2)

Figure 1 illustrates the seasonal variation of load demand represented as 96 h [45,46].

Based on Figure 1, the load demand records its high level during the summer season in
which it reaches almost 100% by mid-day hours and also around 22h00. Meanwhile, in
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 4 of 27

the fall season, the smallest variation in load demand is recorded, which is less than 55%
around 22h00.

Figure 1. Seasonal load demand variation.

2.2. Modeling of DG-Based PV Uncertainty

The irradiance from solar in each of the day’s hours is modeled with the beta proba-
bility density function (PDF), which is extracted from historical data [47]. For every period
(in this study: 1 h), the PDF solar irradiance is expressed as [48]:

Г(𝐴 + 𝐵) ( )
𝑓 (𝑠) = Г(𝐴)Г(𝐵) 𝑠 0 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 1, 𝐴, 𝐵 ≥ 0 (3)
0 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

where, A and B are calculated as [49,50]:

𝜇(1 − 𝜇)
𝐵 = (1 − 𝜇) −1 (4)
𝜎
𝜇×𝐵
𝐴= (5)
1−𝜇

The state’s solar irradiance (s) probability in each hour is calculated as:

𝑃 𝐺 = 𝑓 (𝑠) 𝑑𝑠 (6)

The PV modules ‘s output power module is calculated as [47–50]:

𝑃 °
(𝑠) = 𝑁 × 𝐹𝐹 × 𝑉 × 𝐼 (7)

𝑉 ×𝐼
𝐹𝐹 = (8)
𝑉 ×𝐼

𝑉 =𝑉 ×𝐾 ×𝑇 (9)

𝐼 = 𝑠 𝐼 × 𝐾 × (𝐼𝑇 − 25) (10)

𝑁 − 20
𝑇 =𝑇 +𝑠 (11)
0.8
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 5 of 27

𝑃 (𝑡) = 𝑃 °
(𝑠)𝑃 𝐺 𝑑𝑠 (12)

Figure 2 exposes the seasonal power output from the PVDG represented as 96 h. In
Figure 2, the PV output is high in the summer season, especially at the hours around mid-
day, and it also varies proportionally with the irradiation of solar throughout the year,
and remains at zero whenever irradiation is absent, in general between 18h00 and 6h00.

Figure 2. The seasonal variation of PVDG output power.

2.3. Modeling of DG Based Wind Turbine Uncertainty

WT generation power is related to wind speed and parameters of the power perfor-
mance curve. Once the Rayleigh PDF is produced in a specified period segment, the out-
put power in each state is calculated thus [51,52]:

0 0 ≤ v ≤ v ci

 Prated × ( v − v ci ) v ci ≤ v ≤ v r
PW T (v ) =  ( v r − v ci ) (13)
P v r ≤ v ≤ v co
 rated
 0 v co ≤ v

Figure 3 represents the WTDG’s seasonal power generation, represented in 96 h. The

weakest electrical power generated from WTDG is recorded in the summer season,
whereas the highest power generation is granted in the winter season. Additionally,
WTDG output power generation is proportionally related to the speed of wind; hence,
when the season is windy, the generated power is at maximum.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 6 of 27

Figure 3. The seasonal variation of WTDG output power.

Figure 4 represents the distribution line k that is represented with an impedance

𝑅 + 𝑗𝑋 that is connected between buses i and j, with the installation of PV and based
RDG.

Figure 4. Modeling the distribution line with the presence of RDG sources.

3. Multi-Dimension Framework for Operating Requirements of EDN

3.1. Multi-Objective Functions
The proposed multi-objective functions (MOF) for this work are devoted to searching
the optimal location and size of multiple DGs based on the PV and WT units in both test
systems’ EDNs, to simultaneously minimize the target indices: APLI, RPLI, VDI, OTI, and
CTII. The next equation represents its formulation:

𝑀𝑂𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 [𝐴𝑃𝐿𝐼 , + 𝑅𝑃𝐿𝐼 , + 𝑉𝐷𝐼 + 𝑂𝑇𝐼 +𝐶𝑇𝐼𝐼 , ] (14)

The active power loss index (APLI) can be formulated as [53,54]:

𝐴𝑃𝐿
𝐴𝑃𝐿𝐼 = × 100% (15)
𝐴𝑃𝐿

𝐴𝑃𝐿 , = 𝛼 𝑃𝑃 +𝑄 𝑄 +𝛽 𝑄 𝑃 +𝑃𝑄 (16)

𝑅
𝛼 = cos(𝛿 − 𝛿 ) (17)
𝑉𝑉
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 7 of 27

𝑅
𝛽 = sin 𝛿 − 𝛿 (18)
𝑉𝑉

The reactive power loss index (RPLI) is formulated as [55]:

𝑅𝑃𝐿
𝑅𝑃𝐿𝐼 = × 100% (19)
𝑅𝑃𝐿

𝑅𝑃𝐿 , = 𝛼 𝑃𝑃 +𝑄 𝑄 +𝛽 𝑄 𝑃 +𝑃𝑄 (20)

𝑋
𝛼 = cos(𝛿 − 𝛿 ) (21)
𝑉𝑉

𝑋
𝛽 = sin 𝛿 − 𝛿 (22)
𝑉𝑉

where RPLBefore RDG/AfterRDG symbolize reactive power losses before and after RDG, and
APLBefore RDG/AfterRDG symbolize active power losses before and after RDG.
The voltage deviation index (VDI) is represented as [56,57]:
𝑉𝐷
𝑉𝐷𝐼 = × 100% (23)
𝑉𝐷

𝑉𝐷 = 1−𝑉 (24)

where VDBefore RDG/AfterRDG is the voltage deviation before and after RDG.
The overcurrent relays’ operation time index (OTI) is expressed as [55]:

𝑂𝑇
𝑂𝑇𝐼 = × 100% (25)
𝑂𝑇

𝐴
𝑂𝑇 = 𝑇𝐷𝑆 (26)
𝑀 −1

𝐼
𝑀 = (27)
𝐼

The coordination time interval index (CTII) of primary and backup OCRs is written
as [55]:
𝐶𝑇𝐼
𝐶𝑇𝐼𝐼 = × 100% (28)
𝐶𝑇𝐼

𝐶𝑇𝐼 = 𝑂𝑇 − 𝑂𝑇 (29)

where OTBefore RDG / AfterRDG is the operation time before and after RDG, OTBackup is the backup
relay’s operation time, and CTIBefore RDG /After RDG represents the coordination time interval
before and after RDG.

3.2. Equality Constraints

Equations (30) and (31) represent the active and reactive power balance of the tested
power system. In these equations, all those supplied by active/reactive power from the
grid, plus those generated with RDG units, equal the requested active/reactive power de-
mand plus the active/reactive power losses:
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 8 of 27

𝑃 +𝑃 = 𝑃 + 𝐴𝑃𝐿 (30)

𝑄 +𝑄 = 𝑄 + 𝑅𝑃𝐿 (31)

3.3. Distribution Line Constraints

Equation (32) shows the voltage at bus i is preserved between the upper and lower
limits. The voltage deviation between the target voltage at load buses (1.0) and the voltage
Vr is kept below the maximum allowable voltage deviation ΔVmax as shown in Equation
(32). Security constraint of the distribution line is represented in equation (34).
𝑉 ≤ |𝑉 | ≤ 𝑉 (32)

1 − 𝑉 ≤ ∆𝑉 (33)

𝑆 ≤𝑆 (34)

3.4. RDG Units’ Inequality Constraints

𝑃 ≤𝑃 ≤𝑃 (35)

𝑄 ≤𝑄 ≤𝑄 (36)

𝑃 (𝑖) ≤ 𝑃 (𝑖) (37)

𝑄 (𝑖) ≤ 𝑃 (𝑖) (38)

2 ≤ 𝑅𝐷𝐺 ≤𝑁 (39)

𝑁 ≤𝑁 . (40)

nRDG,i / Location ≤ 1 (41)

𝑃𝐹 ≤ 𝑃𝐹 ≤ 𝑃𝐹 (42)

𝑃
𝑃𝐹 = (43)
𝑃 +𝑄

3.5. Overview of MPA Algorithm

The MPA algorithm is a new optimization algorithm that is conceptualized from the
foraging behavior and interactions between aquatic predators and prey. This algorithm is
dependent on finding the global optima to an optimization by mimicking the foraging
strategies of marine predators [32]. The MPA initializes a solution set randomly, which is
distributed across the space of search. Its pseudocode is presented as follows (Algorithm
1):
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 9 of 27

Algorithm 1. Pseudocode of applied MPA algorithm.

Initialize the search argent population (Prey) (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛)
While termination criteria are not met
Calculate the fitness and construct the matrix Elite
If 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟 < 𝑀𝑎𝑥_𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟
Update Prey based in 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑠𝚤𝑧𝑒⃗ = 𝐷 ⃗⨂ 𝐸𝑙𝚤𝑡𝑒⃗ − 𝐷 ⃗⨂𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛
Else If 𝑀𝑎𝑥_𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟 < 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟 < 𝑀𝑎𝑥_𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟
For the first half of the populations (𝑖 = 1, … , )
Update Prey based in 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑠𝚤𝑧𝑒⃗ = 𝐷⃗⨂ 𝐸𝑙𝚤𝑡𝑒⃗ − 𝐷⃗⨂𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖 = 1, … ,
For the other half of populations (𝑖 = , … , 𝑛)
Update Prey based in 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑠𝚤𝑧𝑒⃗ = 𝐷 ⃗⨂ 𝐸𝑙𝚤𝑡𝑒⃗ − 𝐷 ⃗⨂𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖 = , … , 𝑛
Else If 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟 < 𝑀𝑎𝑥_𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑟
Update Prey based in 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝𝑠𝚤𝑧𝑒⃗ = 𝐷⃗⨂ 𝐷⃗⨂𝐸𝑙𝚤𝑡𝑒⃗ − 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛
End If
Realize memory saving and update Elite
Apply FADs effect and update accordingly
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ + 𝐶𝐹 𝐺 ⃗ + 𝐷⃗ ⨂(𝐺 ⃗ − 𝐺 ⃗) ⨂𝑇⃗, 𝑖𝑓 𝑟 ≤ 𝐹𝐴𝐷𝑠
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ =
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦⃗ + [𝐹𝐴𝐷𝑠(1 − 𝑟) + 𝑟] 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦 ⃗ − 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑦 ⃗ , 𝑖𝑓 𝑟 ≤ 𝐹𝐴𝐷𝑠
End While

4. Applications and Results

4.1. Test Systems
The proposed algorithm in this work is validated based on two standard EDNs of
IEEE 33-bus, and 69-bus [57,58], that are mentioned in Figure 5a,b and are represented by
their single lone diagrams. Both of these test systems operate under a base voltage of 12.66
kV. Meanwhile, the total active load is 3715.00 kW, and the reactive load is 2300.00 kVar
for the first standard EDN, and 3790.00 kW and 2690.00 kVar for the second standard
EDN.
Each bus of both systems would be protected by an overcurrent relay (OCR) and
covered by a backup OCR, with a coordination time interval (CTI) that been set over 0.2
s. It is calculated for the first standard as 32 OCRs and 31 CTIs. Meanwhile, for the second
test standard, it is calculated as 68 OCRs and 67 CTIs.

(a)
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 10 of 27

(b)
Figure 5. Test systems’ single diagram: (a) IEEE 33-bus; (b) IEEE 69-bus.

4.2. Analysis Results and Comparison

Table 1 gathers the principal parameters and characteristics of the two distribution
networks before the presence of RDG units.

Table 1. The main parameters and characteristics of the EDN test systems.

∑ APL ∑ RPL ∑ VD ∑ OT ∑ CTI

Test System Buses Branches Relays
(MWh) (MVarh) (p.u.) (sec) (sec)
IEEE 33-bus 33 32 32 11.151 7.559 126.87 1964.90 747.06
IEEE 69-bus 69 68 68 11.845 5.390 131.20 3714.57 1617.59

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results after the optimization when using the various
recent algorithms, while comparing the cases before and after installation of PVDG and
WTDG units into IEEE 33 and 69-bus EDNs, respectively. The chosen algorithms were
implemented in MATLAB Software (version 2017.b). The PC consists of a processor of
Intel Core i5 / 3.4 GHz including a RAM of 8 GB.
The optimization results shown in Tables 2 and 3 reveal the superiority and effective-
ness of the MPA technique in delivering the best results represented as the minimum of
MOF for all studied cases of RDG optimal integration. Furthermore, the case of hybrid
PVDG-WTDG units was the best choice that provided the minimum of all results simul-
taneously for EDNs.
The hybrid PVDG-WTDG units case minimized the MOF to the rate of 232.78% for
the first test system, which was less than 10.90% in the case of WTDG units and 104.51%
in the case of PVDG units, while minimizing the MOF to the rate of 238.12% for the second
test system, which was 22.88% less than in the case of WTDG units and 94.82% less than
in the case of PVDG units.
The other algorithms also showed good efficiency by delivering best and minimum
results, but for each index on its own, as mentioned, for the first EDN, the SMA reduced
the APL to 79.38% in the case of PVDG units, and the PSO algorithm minimized the VD
to 66.90% in the case of WTDG units. For the second EDN, the SMA minimized the APL
to 76.12% in the case of PVDG units and the PSO algorithm minimized the VD to 73.90%
in the case of WTDG units, while the MFO algorithm minimized the OT of the overcurrent
relays to 99.83% in the case of hybrid PVDG-WTDG units.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 11 of 27

Table 2. The results after optimization for IEEE 33-bus.

Algorithm RDG RDG PRDG QRDG APLI RPLI VDI OTI CTII MOF
Applied Type Bus (MW) (MVar) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
6 0.4615
PVDG 8 0.8112 --- 82.96 88.28 99.80 99.87 367.77
82.93
10 0.3665
3 0.8455 0.6105
WTDG 8 0.7776 0.0114 59.54 60.46 71.54 99.60 99.73 272.11
30 1.0322 0.6851
WOA
3 1.8699
7 0.6438 ---
Hybrid
33 0.4333
PVDG 58.53 60.14 70.27 99.60 99.71 270.79
3 0.3015 1.9533
WTDG
5 0.5285 0.3998
17 0.4089 0.3104
3 1.5189
PVDG 18 0.4436 --- 77.99 78.84 84.88 99.73 99.81 366.49
29 1.4832
12 0.7657 0.5660
WTDG 24 1.2020 0.3914 59.40 59.32 66.90 99.50 99.67 271.49
28 1.0566 0.2215
PSO
3 3.000
5 0.3903 ---
Hybrid
33 0.3083
PVDG 57.02 57.46 65.46 99.50 99.60 270.13
3 1.9558 0.4035
WTDG
6 0.3200 0.7660
8 0.9938 0.4787
4 2.1847
PVDG 15 0.3000 --- 80.62 81.69 87.09 99.79 99.86 348.75
32 0.5590
6 1.4364 1.0773
WTDG 17 0.3384 0.2122 62.00 63.82 69.87 99.58 99.72 267.46
23 0.8035 0.1197
MFO
3 1.8000
7 0.3000 ---
Hybrid
14 0.3102
PVDG 60.48 61.26 69.33 99.52 99.69 265.07
4 0.6502 0.3017
WTDG
11 1.1356 0.5230
33 0.4545 0.3409
6 1.5972
PVDG 11 0.6078 --- 79.38 80.60 86.02 99.77 99.85 344.70
25 0.5193
3 1.2022 0.3078
SMA WTDG 6 1.4427 0.7125 57.21 59.07 68.35 99.64 99.69 247.59
14 0.4581 0.4008
Hybrid 13 0.4887
PVDG 26 0.9530 --- 57.07 59.08 68.09 99.61 99.70 245.90
WTDG 30 0.5350
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 12 of 27

6 0.3003 0.3048
12 0.4031 0.3829
16 0.3004 0.3461
4 1.4414
PVDG 13 0.6225 --- 79.68 80.33 86.49 99.78 99.85 337.31
33 0.4670
3 0.6543 0.2225
WTDG 12 0.7012 0.4038 58.07 58.55 67.90 99.56 99.70 243.68
30 0.8253 0.6190
MPA
3 0.3485
20 0.3623 ---
Hybrid
25 0.3845
PVDG 56.56 57.16 67.79 99.55 99.69 232.78
6 0.5753 0.4315
WTDG
13 0.5344 0.3234
31 0.5357 0.4018

Table 3. The results after optimization for IEEE 69-bus.

Algorithm RDG RDG PRDG QRDG APLI RPLI VDI OTI CTII MOF
Applied Type Bus (MW) (MVar) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
47 1.5735
PVDG 50 0.4624 --- 79.38 79.78 89.76 99.92 99.92 364.64
60 1.5958
2 2.1234 1.1937
WTDG 54 0.1160 0.4185 64.17 62.46 77.11 99.88 99.88 288.52
62 0.5660 0.7497
WOA
3 2.0400
36 0.8206 ---
Hybrid
48 0.9504
PVDG 61.07 60.71 77.67 99.88 99.87 269.77
3 1.4720 0.3658
WTDG
11 1.3135 0.6303
59 0.4329 0.3926
9 1.1276
PVDG 49 0.0449 --- 79.08 79.35 89.52 99.91 99.92 350.65
61 1.0303
11 0.6467 0.4832
WTDG 28 1.4905 0.3556 59.25 61.01 73.90 99.83 99.82 286.78
61 1.6405 0.2410
PSO
3 2.1408
6 0.3799 ---
Hybrid
37 0.1417
PVDG 61.00 60.11 76.67 99.86 99.86 266.81
4 0.5237 1.8424
WTDG
6 1.5039 0.4341
61 0.8347 0.1401
3 2.1567
347.27
PVDG 4 0.3826 --- 78.77 79.91 90.14 99.92 99.92
61 1.4794
MFO
28 1.9489 0.8095
WTDG 60 0.8294 0.4098 58.82 61.41 76.59 99.86 99.86 269.51
63 0.5220 0.6502
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 13 of 27

3 1.2356
12 1.0379 ---
Hybrid
51 0.9177
PVDG 60.40 59.41 76.17 99.83 99.86 260.53
3 0.4803 0.3597
WTDG
51 0.4234 1.4062
64 0.7805 0.3000
22 0.5418
PVDG 29 0.6657 --- 76.12 79.82 86.94 99.90 99.89 334.09
61 1.1751
32 2.5061 1.7548
WTDG 62 1.6484 0.6285 57.97 58.61 74.70 99.85 99.84 250.85
69 0.1804 1.1974
SMA
3 1.3009
10 1.1935 ---
Hybrid
48 0.3000
PVDG 58.70 58.71 75.07 99.85 99.84 253.63
2 0.7751 0.3794
WTDG
3 2.1341 0.3000
61 0.4020 0.4258
61 0.9147
PVDG 63 0.3947 --- 77.84 78.92 87.77 99.91 99.90 332.94
69 0.6028
4 1.1023 0.0165
WTDG 14 0.0346 0.0209 57.00 58.45 74.43 99.85 99.84 261.00
61 1.4693 1.0326
MPA
29 0.3155
50 0.4765 ---
Hybrid
54 0.5223
PVDG 56.09 57.74 71.46 99.84 99.83 238.12
6 0.5953 0.4352
WTDG
13 1.0530 0.7460
31 0.5320 0.3921

Figures 6 and 7 represent the boxplot of the applied algorithms for 20 executions for
the optimal integration of all studied cases into the test system EDNs. To ameliorate the
comparison between all the applied optimization algorithms, the MOF boxplot minimiza-
tion has been implemented and is shown in Figures 6 and 7. After 20 independent runs,
all the applied algorithms revealed good performance and reliability in providing very
favorable results, with MOF providing the best minimization, and the MPA technique
exhibiting superior behavior among all of them. The results also confirm the capability of
the MPA in finding the best results for MOF minimization, even with the minimum me-
dian for all the cases studied. Furthermore, it is obvious that the best MOF results of min-
imization for the 20 runs recorded when using the MPA technique were delivered based
on the case hybrid PVDG-WTDG units for both test system EDNs.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 14 of 27

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6. The MOF boxplot after applying the algorithms for the IEEE 33-bus: (a) PVDG case; (b)
WTDG case; (c) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

(a) (b)
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 15 of 27

(c)
Figure 7. The MOF boxplot after applying the algorithms for the IEEE 69-bus: (a) PVDG case; (b)
WTDG case; (c) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

Figures 8 and 9 depict the convergence curves for the minimization of MOF when
applying the algorithms for the optimal setting of all the studied cases in the two test
system EDNs.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 8. Characteristics of convergence of the algorithms for the IEEE 33-bus: (a) PVDG case; (b)
WTDG case; (c) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 16 of 27

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 9. Characteristics of convergence of the algorithms for the IEEE 69-bus: (a) PVDG case; (b)
WTDG case; (c) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

The analysis of the convergence characteristics in Figures 8 and 9, after the applica-
tion of the algorithms for all cases’ presence into both test system EDNs, and for a maxi-
mum number of iterations set to 100, including a population size equal to 10, reveals the
superiority of the MPA in producing the best results and solutions for the aforementioned
formulated problem.
When compared to all the applied algorithms, the MPA provided the minimum of
MOF for all the studied cases for the optimal presence in both test system EDNs, including
much better results when installing the hybrid PVDG-WTDG units, meanwhile minimiz-
ing the MOF to the rate of 232.78% for the first EDN, and to the rate 238.12% for the second
EDN. The MPA had a slow convergence characteristic to reach the optimal solutions; it
also settles down late, mostly after 70 iterations for all the studied cases in both test system
EDNs. Figure 10 comprises the seasonal total active power losses variation represented as
96 h, for all cases of optimal presence in the two EDN systems.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 17 of 27

(a)

(b)
Figure 10. The seasonal total active power losses variation: (a) IEEE 33-bus; (b) IEEE 69-bus.

Figure 10 shows that the optimal presence of all studied cases based on using the
technique of MPA had clear and strong effects on the technical characteristics and param-
eters of the two test system EDNs, as the mentioned seasonal total active power losses.
The seasonal total active power losses were significantly minimized for both test sys-
tem EDNs and demonstrated optimal installation of all the studied cases, with superior
effects and minimization provided in the case of hybrid PVDG-WTDG units from a total
value of 11.151 MWh down to 7.32 MWh for the first system EDN with a minimization
rate of 56.56%, and from a total value of 11.845 MWh down to 6.64 MWh with a minimi-
zation rate of 56.09%; as long as the hybrid PVDG-WTDG units combine two renewable
sources that generate both active and reactive powers, their generation is guaranteed con-
tinuously throughout the year’s seasons and almost without interruption.
Figures 11 and 12 show the seasonal branch active power loss variation of both test
system EDNs represented in 96 h for all the studied cases of optimal RDG presence.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 18 of 27

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 11. Seasonal branch active power loss variation for the IEEE 33-bus: (a) Basic case; (b)
PVDG case; (c) WTDG case; (d) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

(a) (b)
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 19 of 27

(c) (d)
Figure 12. Seasonal branch active power loss variation for the IEEE 69-bus: (a) Basic case; (b) PVDG
case; (c) WTDG case; (d) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

The optimal installation of the studied cases using the MPA technique had an obvi-
ous impact on seasonal active loss in every branch of test system EDNs as represented in
the 3D graphics shown in Figures 11 and 12.
It is proven that: the case of hybrid PVDG-WTDG units was the best choice that re-
vealed a strong impact of minimization in every branch of the two test system EDNs
throughout the year’s seasons and especially in the winter season, for the reason that the
WTDG units provide huge and maximum generation of both reactive and active powers
and also are compensated and have the PVDG units as a backup and an additional source
of energy even if it is not the best season for the PVDG to generate its maximum output
power, but it is considered an essential element that contributed to those best results. Fig-
ure 13 illustrates the seasonal total voltage deviation variation of both test system EDN
represented in 96 h for all cases of optimal RDG presence. The results shown in Figure 13
confirm that the optimal presence of all the studied cases, based on using the MPA tech-
nique, excellently affected and minimized the total seasonal voltage deviation in both test
system EDNs.

(a)
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 20 of 27

(b)
Figure 13. The seasonal total voltage derivation variation: (a) IEEE 33-bus; (b) IEEE 69-bus.

The hybrid PVDG-WTDG units’ case was considered the best choice among the stud-
ied cases since it clearly guaranteed the minimum and best results of the seasonal voltage
deviation, from a total value of 126.87 p.u. down to 97.43 p.u. with a minimization rate of
67.79% for the first test system EDN, and from a total value of 131.20 p.u. down to 93.71
p.u. with a minimization rate of 71.46% for the second test system EDN.
It was noticed that the best effect of that minimization was recorded in the winter
season, while the worst impact and effect of the hybrid PVDG-WTDG units was recorded
in the season of summer, for reasons that the WTDG units provided their minimum gen-
eration of active and reactive powers in that season, and even PVDG units provided max-
imum generation but could not keep up with the impact and the results that could be
provided from WTDG units’ presence.
Figures 14 and 15 depict the seasonal voltage profiles variation of the two test system
EDNs represented in 96 h for all the studied cases of optimal RDG presence.

(a) (b)
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 21 of 27

(c) (d)
Figure 14. Seasonal voltage profiles variation for the IEEE 33-bus: (a) Basic case; (b) PVDG case; (c)
WTDG case; (d) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 15. Seasonal voltage profiles variation for the IEEE 69-bus: (a) Basic case; (b) PVDG case; (c)
WTDG case; (d) Hybrid PVDG-WTDG case.

It was proven that the hybrid PVDG-WTDG units’ case was the best choice from
among other cases. In addition, it provides a guarantee of the voltage profiles’ enhance-
ment in each bus of both tests system EDNs throughout all the year’s seasons. Further-
more, the season of winter was the best season, in which the highest amelioration of volt-
age profiles was recorded, and because of the addition of the PVDG units, the WTDG
units generated their maximum output represented in active and reactive powers if it was
the windiest season of the year.
While the worst results were carried out in the case of only PVDG units, where some
bettering in the voltage profiles is recorded, but with different levels in the case of simul-
taneous hybrid sources of PV and WT.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 22 of 27

Figure 16 illustrates the seasonal variation of the relays’ operating time in both test
system EDNs, represented in 96 h for all the studied cases of optimal RDG presence.

(a)

(b)
Figure 16. The seasonal variation of the overcurrent relay’s total operation time: (a) IEEE 33-bus; (b)
IEEE 69-bus.

The principal function of overcurrent relays is to sense, identify, and remove the fault
current, which occurs in the lines for protecting the system’s targeted parts. Minimizing
the operation time of the OCRs is very beneficial in many ways and includes aspects such
as protecting the system, maintaining the service continuity, and avoiding any unfavora-
ble interruptions, as well as extending the equipment lifetime.
The results based on the use of the MPA technique for the optimal presence of the
studied cases of RDG units in both test system EDNs clearly minimized seasonal operat-
ing time of the overcurrent relays included in both EDNs.
The hybrid PVDG-WTDG case is obviously the superior and best case that achieved
the lowest values of total operating time, where it was reduced from a total value of
1964.90 s until 1957.05 s for the first EDN with a minimization rate of 99.55% and from a
total value of 3714.57 s until 3708.62 s with a minimization rate of 99.84% for the second
EDN.
Furthermore, the huge effect of that minimization was recorded in the winter season
as long in addition to the PVDG units, the WTDG units generated their maximum output
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 23 of 27

powers; also, the minimization impact is directly related to the voltage profiles ameliorat-
ing, where the OCR’s operation time is proportionally related to the voltage profiles.

5. Conclusions
This paper has been devoted to applying a new metaheuristic optimization algo-
rithm, which used the MPA to determine the optimal location and sizing of multiple re-
newable DGs based on PV and WT sources when taking into consideration the seasonal
uncertainty of RDG output power and load demand variation. The optimization was im-
plemented to improve the performances of distribution networks by minimizing several
MOFs, which are the total of APLI, RPLI, VDI, OTI, and CTII. The study was performed
with the test systems IEEE 33-bus and 69-bus EDNs.
The MPA showed good behavior and strong reliability in providing the best results
for all the studied cases, even when compared to many other recent algorithms such as
SMA and MFO. The results also revealed the efficiency of the optimal presence of RDGs
units, which obviously guarantee huge achievements and improvements to the perfor-
mances of both test system EDNs performances, with superiority for the hybrid PVDG-
WTDG units’ case throughout all the year’s seasons.
The optimal installation of the hybrid PVDG-WTDG units made a significant im-
provement to the EDNs by leading to the minimization of the active and reactive losses
down to 56.56% and 57.16%, respectively, for the first EDN, and also down to 56.09% and
57.74%, respectively, for the second EDN; enhanced the voltage profiles and obviously
ameliorated the protection system against overcurrent, for the reason that it was capable
of simultaneously delivering active and reactive powers all throughout the year’s seasons
without any interruptions as long as one source compensated for the others’ absence or
weakness. Other deduced conclusions achieved from the current study are as follows:
- It is technically beneficial that hybrid PVDG-WTDG units would be applied on a
practical distribution network in many aspects;
- Using the multi-objectives functions considering various constraints is also recom-
mended to meet and get close to the practical studies;
- The optimization considering the seasonal variation of load-source powers takes the
study toward reality and makes it more efficient.
Future work will focus on developing more complex MOF frameworks, which in-
clude various technical and economic issues. In addition, adding the trendy topic of load
for charge stations for electric vehicles to extremely improve the performance of the elec-
trical distribution networks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.B., M.Z. and S.S.; Methodology, M.Z.; Software, N.B.
and S.S.; Validation, M.Z. and R.A.E.-S.; Visualization, S.S.; Formal analysis, R.A.E.-S.; Investigation,
C.Z.E.-B. and R.A.E.-S.; Resources, N.B. and C.Z.E.-B.; Data curation, N.B. and M.Z.; Writing—orig-
inal draft, N.B. and R.A.E.-S.; Writing—review & editing, M.Z. and R.A.E.-S.; Supervision, R.A.E.-
S.; Project administration, M.Z.; Funding acquisition, M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Nomenclature

PVDG Photovoltaic distributed generation

WTDG Wind turbine distributed generation
RDG Renewable distributed generation
EDN Electrical distribution network
MPA Marine predator algorithm
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 24 of 27

MOF Multi-objective functions

APLI Active power loss index
RPLI Reactive power loss index
VDI Voltage deviation index
OTI Operating time index
CTII Coordination time interval index
λ Load demand’s parameter
Pk, Qk Active and reactive powers injected at bus k
Qok, Pok Reactive and active powers at bus k
PDF Probability density function
N Modules’ number
Tcy, TA Cell and ambient temperatures (°C)
NOT Cell nominal operation temperature (°C)
FF Fill factor
Voc Open-circuit voltage (V)
Isc Short-circuit current (A)
VMPP, IMPP Maximum power point’s voltage and current
s Solar irradiance’s random variable (kW/m2)
Kv, Ki Current and voltage temperature coefficients (A/°C and V/°C)
fb (s) Beta distribution function of s
s1, s2 Solar irradiance limits of states
A, B Parameters of fb (s)
μ, σ Mean and standard deviation
PWT WT generator output power
vci, vcr, vco Cut-in speed, rated speed, and cut-off speed of the WT
v Average wind speed in every period (hour)
Pij, Qij Line’s active and reactive powers
Rij, Xij Resistance and reactance of line
Vi , Vj Voltage at bus i, and j
δi , δj Angles at buses i, j
Nbus Bus number
PRDGmin, PRDGmax Active powers limits of RDG
QRDGmin, QRDGmax Reactive powers limits of RDG
RDGPosition RDG units’ position
NRDG Number of RDG units
NRDG.max Maximal number of RDG units
nRDG, i Location of RDG units at bus i
Vbus Bus voltage
Vmin, Vmax Specified voltages limits
ΔV Voltage drops
ΔVmax Maximum voltage drops
Rij, Xij Resistance and reactance of distribution line
Sij Apparent power.
Smax Maximum of apparent power of the distribution line
OTi Operating time of primary relay
A, B Constants equal to 0.14 and 0.02
TDS Time dial setting
IF, IP Fault and pickup current
NPR, NBR Number of primary and backup relays
PG, QG Generator’s active and reactive powers
PRDG, QRDG Active and reactive power from RDG
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 25 of 27

PD, QD Active and reactive powers of demand load

References
1. Ehsan, A.; Yang, Q. Optimal Integration and Planning of Renewable Distributed Generation in the Power Distribution Net-
works: A Review of Analytical Techniques. Appl. Energy 2018, 210, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.106.
2. Atwa, Y.M.; El-Saadany, E.F.; Salama, M.M.A.; Seethapathy, R. Optimal Renewable Resources Mix for Distribution System
Energy Loss Minimization. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2009, 25, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2030276.
3. Theo, W.L.; Lim, J.S.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Review of Distributed Generation (DG) System Planning and Optimisation
Techniques: Comparison of Numerical and Mathematical Modelling Methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 531–573.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.063.
4. Ehsan, A.; Yang, Q. State-of-the-art Techniques for Modelling of Uncertainties in Active Distribution Network Planning: A
Review. Appl. Energy 2019, 239, 1509–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.211.
5. Yuan, Z.; Wang, W.; Wang, H.; Yildizbasi, A. A New Methodology for Optimal Location and Sizing of Battery Energy Storage
System in Distribution Networks for Loss Reduction. J. Energy Storage 2020, 29, e101368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101368.
6. Radosavljevic, J.; Arsic, N.; Milovanovic, M.; Ktena, A. Optimal Placement and Sizing of Renewable Distributed Generation
Using Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithm. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2020, 8, 499–510.
https://doi.org/10.35833/mpce.2019.000259.
7. Parihar, S.S.; Malik, N. Optimal Allocation of Renewable DGs in a Radial Distribution System Based on New Voltage Stability
Index. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2020, 30, e12295. https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12295.
8. Kanwar, N.; Gupta, N.; Niazi, K.; Swarnkar, A. Optimal Distributed Resource Planning for Microgrids Under Uncertain Envi-
ronment. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2017, 12, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2017.0085.
9. Samala, R.K.; Kotapuri, M.R. Optimal Allocation of Distributed Generations using Hybrid Technique with Fuzzy Logic Con-
troller Radial Distribution System. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-1957-3.
10. Sedghi, M.; Ahmadian, A.; Aliakbar-Golkar, M. Optimal Storage Planning in Active Distribution Network Considering Uncer-
tainty of Wind Power Distributed Generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 31, 304–316.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2015.2404533.
11. Ganguly, S.; Samajpati, D. Distributed Generation Allocation on Radial Distribution Networks Under Uncertainties of Load
and Generation Using Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2015.2406915.
12. Ullah, Z.; Elkadeem, M.; Wang, S.; Akber, S.M.A. Optimal Planning of RDS Considering PV Uncertainty with Different Load
Models using Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2020, 16, 63. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwgs.2020.106126.
13. Evangelopoulos, V.A.; Georgilakis, P.S. Optimal Distributed Generation Placement Under Uncertainties Based on Point Esti-
mate Method Embedded Genetic Algorithm. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2014, 8, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
gtd.2013.0442.
14. Biswas, P.P.; Suganthan, P.; Mallipeddi, R.; Amaratunga, G.A. Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch with Uncertainties in Load
Demand and Renewable Energy Sources Adopting Scenario-based Approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 75, 616–632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.11.042.
15. Saleh, A.; Senjyu, T.; Alkhalaf, S.; Alotaibi, M.; Hemeida, A. Water Cycle Algorithm for Probabilistic Planning of Renewable
Energy Resource, Considering Different Load Models. Energies 2020, 13, 5800. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215800.
16. Ehsan, A.; Yang, Q.; Cheng, M. A Scenario-based Robust Investment Planning Model for Multi-type Distributed Generation
Under Uncertainties. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2018, 12, 4426–4434. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.5602.
17. Poornazaryan, B.; Karimyan, P.; Gharehpetian, G.; Abedi, M. Optimal Allocation and Sizing of DG Units Considering Voltage
Stability, Losses and Load Variations. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 79, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.12.034.
18. 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 Conference on Power Electronics and Renewable Energy (CPERE), Aswan,
Egypt, 23–25 October 2019; pp. 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/cpere45374.2019.8980092.
19. Bahrami, S.; Amini, M.H.; Shafie-Khah, M.; Catalao, J.P.S. A Decentralized Renewable Generation Management and Demand
Response in Power Distribution Networks. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 9, 1783–1797.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2018.2815502.
20. Rani, K.S.; Saw, B.K.; Achargee, P.; Bohre, A.K. Optimal Sizing and Placement of Renewable DGs using GOA Considering
Seasonal Variation of Load and DGs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Smart
Power System and Sustainable Energy (CISPSSE), Keonjhar, Odisha, India, 29–31 July 2020; pp. 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/cispsse49931.2020.9212273.
21. Esmaeili, M.; Sedighizadeh, M.; Esmaili, M. Multi-objective Optimal Reconfiguration and DG (Distributed Generation) Power
Allocation in Distribution Networks using Big Bang-Big Crunch Algorithm Considering Load Uncertainty. Energy 2016, 103,
86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.152.
22. Ben Hamida, I.; Salah, S.B.; Msahli, F.; Mimouni, M.F. Optimal Network Reconfiguration and Renewable DG Integration Con-
sidering Time Sequence Variation in Load and DGs. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.106.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 26 of 27

23. Barik, S.; Das, D. Determining the Sizes of Renewable DGs Considering Seasonal Variation of Generation and Load and their
Impact on System Load Growth. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2018, 12, 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2017.0528.
24. Srinivasan, T.; Wang, X.; Kim, H.-.-J.; Ra, I.-H. Performance Enhancement for Microgrids Under the Demand Uncertainties with
the Presence of Multiple DGs Through Stochastic Ranking Algorithm. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2020, 16, 223–238.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-020-00602-7.
25. Ramadan, A.; Ebeed, M.; Kamel, S.; Abdelaziz, A.; Alhelou, H.H. Scenario-Based Stochastic Framework for Optimal Planning
of Distribution Systems Including Renewable-Based DG Units. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063566.
26. Salkuti, S.R.; Sandeep, V.; Babu, B.C.; Jung, C.-M. Multi-Objective based Optimal Generation Scheduling Considering Wind and
Solar Energy Systems. Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst. 2018, 19, 20. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijeeps-2018-0006.
27. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P. Optimal Sizing and Placement of Capacitor Banks and Distributed Generation in
Distribution Systems Using Spring Search Algorithm. Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst. 2020, 21, 20190217.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijeeps-2019-0217.
28. Zellagui, M.; Belbachir, N.; El-Bayeh, C.Z. Optimal Allocation of RDG in Distribution System Considering the Seasonal Uncer-
tainties of Load Demand and Solar-Wind Generation Systems. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Smart
Technologies (EUROCON), Lviv, Ukraine, 6–8 July 2021; pp. 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1109/eurocon52738.2021.9535617.
29. Raj, V.; Kumar, B.K. An Improved Affine Arithmetic-Based Optimal DG Sizing and Placement Algorithm Using PSO for Radial
Distribution Networks with Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 21st National Power Systems Conference (NPSC), Gandhinagar,
India, December 2020; pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/npsc49263.2020.9331886.
30. Elkadeem, M.R.; Elaziz, M.A.; Ullah, Z.; Wang, S.; Sharshir, S.W. Optimal Planning of Renewable Energy-Integrated Distribu-
tion System Considering Uncertainties. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 164887–164907. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2947308.
31. Abid, S.; Apon, H.J.; Morshed, K.A.; Ahmed, A. Optimal Planning of Multiple Renewable Energy-Integrated Distribution Sys-
tem with Uncertainties Using Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 40716–40730. https://doi.org/10.1109/ac-
cess.2022.3167395.
32. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H. Marine Predators Algorithm: A Nature-inspired Metaheuristic.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113377.
33. Shaheen, A.M.; Elsayed, A.M.; Ginidi, A.R.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Alharthi, M.M.; Ghoneim, S.S. A Novel Improved Marine Pred-
ators Algorithm for Combined Heat and Power Economic Dispatch Problem. Alex. Eng. J. 2021, 61, 1834–1851.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.07.001.
34. Khunkitti, S.; Siritaratiwat, A.; Premrudeepreechacharn, S. A Many-Objective Marine Predators Algorithm for Solving Many-
Objective Optimal Power Flow Problem. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11829. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211829.
35. Ebeed, M.; Alhejji, A.; Kamel, S.; Jurado, F. Solving the Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch Using Marine Predators Algorithm
Considering the Uncertainties in Load and Wind-Solar Generation Systems. Energies 2020, 13, 4316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174316.
36. Shaheen, A.M.; Elsayed, A.M.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Kamel, S.; Ghoneim, S.S.M. A Modified Marine Predators Optimization Algo-
rithm for Simultaneous Network Reconfiguration and Distributed Generator Allocation in Distribution Systems Under Differ-
ent Loading Conditions. Eng. Optim. 2021, 54, 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215x.2021.1897799.
37. Shaheen, A.; Elsayed, A.; Ginidi, A.; El-Sehiemy, R.; Elattar, E. A Heap-Based Algorithm with Deeper Exploitative Feature for
Optimal Allocations of Distributed Generations with Feeder Reconfiguration In Power Distribution Networks. Knowledge-Based
Syst. 2022, 241, 108269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108269.
38. Padhy, S.; Sahu, P.R.; Panda, S.; Padmanaban, S.; Guerrero, J.M.; Khan, B. Marine Predator Algorithm based PD-(1+PI) Control-
ler for Frequency Regulation in Multi-microgrid System. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2022, 16, 2136–2151.
https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12504.
39. Yakout, A.; Sabry, W.; Hasanien, H.M. Enhancing Rotor Angle Stability of Power Systems using Marine Predator Algorithm
based Cascaded PID Control. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 1849–1857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.10.018.
40. Bayoumi, A.S.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Abaza, A. Effective PV Parameter Estimation Algorithm Based on Marine Predators Opti-
mizer Considering Normal and Low Radiation Operating Conditions. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 47, 3089–3104.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06045-0.
41. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The Whale Optimization Algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adveng-
soft.2016.01.008.
42. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Networks
(ICNN), Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.
43. Mirjalili, S. Moth-flame optimization algorithm: A Novel Nature-inspired Heuristic Paradigm. Knowl. Based Syst. 2015, 89, 228–
249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006.
44. Li, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S. Slime Mould Algorithm: A New Method for Stochastic Optimization.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 111, 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.03.055.
45. Maleki, A.; Khajeh, M.G.; Ameri, M. Optimal Sizing of A Grid Independent Hybrid Renewable Energy System Incorporating
Resource Uncertainty, and Load Uncertainty. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 83, 514–524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.04.008.
Energies 2023, 16, 1595 27 of 27

46. Maya, K.N.; Jasmin, E.A. Optimal Integration of Distributed Generation (DG) Resources in Unbalanced Distribution System
Considering Uncertainty Modelling. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2016, 27, e2248. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2248.
47. Hung, D.Q.; Mithulananthan, N.; Lee, K.Y. Determining PV Penetration for Distribution Systems with Time-Varying Load
Models. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2014, 29, 3048–3057. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2014.2314133.
48. Khatod, D.K.; Pant, V.; Sharma, J. Evolutionary Programming based Optimal Placement of Renewable Distributed Generators.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 28, 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2012.2211044.
49. Soroudi, A.; Aien, M.; Ehsan, M. A Probabilistic Modeling of Photo Voltaic Modules and Wind Power Generation Impact on
Distribution Networks. IEEE Syst. J. 2011, 6, 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsyst.2011.2162994.
50. Kianmehr, E.; Nikkhah, S.; Rabiee, A. Multi-objective Stochastic Model for Joint Optimal Allocation of DG units and Network
Reconfiguration from DG owner’s and DisCo’s perspectives. Renew. Energy 2018, 132, 471–485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.032.
51. Shin, J.; Lee, J.H.; Realff, M.J. Operational Planning and Optimal Sizing of Microgrid Considering Multi-Scale Wind Uncertainty.
Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 616–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.081.
52. Belbachir, N.; Zellagui, M.; Lasmari, A.; El-Bayeh, C.Z.; Bekkouche, B. Optimal PV Sources Integration in Distribution System
and Its Impacts on Overcurrent Relay Based Time-Current-Voltage Tripping Characteristic. In Proceedings of the 12th Interna-
tional Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE), Bucharest, Romania, 25–27 March 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1109/atee52255.2021.9425155.
53. Belbachir, N.; Zellagui, M.; Settoul, S.; El-Bayeh, C.Z.; Bekkouche, B. Simultaneous Optimal Integration of Photovoltaic Distrib-
uted Generation and Battery Energy Storage System in Active Distribution Network using Chaotic Grey Wolf Optimization.
Electr. Eng. Electromechanics 2021, 3, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.20998/2074-272x.2021.3.09.
54. Onlam, A.; Yodphet, D.; Chatthaworn, R.; Surawanitkun, C.; Siritaratiwat, A.; Khunkitti, P. Power Loss Minimization and Volt-
age Stability Improvement in Electrical Distribution System via Network Reconfiguration and Distributed Generation Place-
ment Using Novel Adaptive Shuffled Frogs Leaping Algorithm. Energies 2019, 12, 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030553.
55. Zellagui, M.; Lasmari, A.; Settoul, S.; El-Bayeh, C.Z.; Chenni, R.; Belbachir, N. Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm for Optimal
Installation of DSTATCOM into Distribution System based on Various Voltage Stability Indices. In Proceedings of the 9th In-
ternational Conference on Modern Power Systems (MPS), Cluj, Romania, 16–17 June 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1109/mps52805.2021.9492572.
56. Belbachir, N.; Zellagui, M.; Bekkouche, B. Optimal Location and Sizing of Multiple Distributed Generators in Radial Distribu-
tion Network using Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms. Facta Univ. Ser. Electron. Energetics 2022, 35, 229–242.
https://doi.org/10.2298/fuee2202229b.
57. P., D.P.R.; V.C., V.R.; T., G.M. Ant Lion Optimization Algorithm for Optimal Sizing of Renewable Energy Resources for Loss
Reduction in Distribution Systems. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2018, 5, 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesit.2017.06.001.
58. Zellagui, M.; Belbachir, N.; Lasmari, A.; Bekkouche, B.; El-Bayeh, C.Z. Application Hybrid Chaotic Maps and Adaptive Accel-
eration Coefficients PSO Algorithm for Optimal Integration Photovoltaic Distributed Generation Problem in Distribution En-
ergy Network. In Control Applications in Modern Power Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022, pp. 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0193-5_3.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(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.