IIE Transactions (2015) 47, 1122–1138

Copyright 
C “IIE”

ISSN: 0740-817X print / 1545-8830 online

DOI: 10.1080/0740817X.2015.1009199

Reliability and quality control for distributed wind/solar

energy integration: a multi-criteria approach

TONGDAN JIN1, YING YU2∗ and ELSAYED ELSAYED3

1
Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
2
School of Mechatronics Engineering & Automation, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200001, People’s Republic of China
E-mail: squarey@shu.edu.cn
3
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08504, USA

Received August 2013 and accepted January 2015

A distributed generation system that integrates wind and solar energy has emerged as a new paradigm for power supply. The goal of
distributed generation planning is to determine the generation capacity, placement, and maintenance such that the system performance
is optimized. In prior studies, the decision is often made assuming a deterministic operating condition. Power intermittency and
equipment cost are the main challenges in deploying a wind- and solar-based energy solution. This article proposes a multi-
criteria generation planning model to maximize the renewable energy throughput while minimizing its cost. The system is designed
under stringent reliability and power quality criteria stipulated as loss-of-load-probability and voltage variation, respectively. A
variance propagation model is derived to decouple the voltage correlations between upstream and downstream nodes. A two-stage,
metaheuristic algorithm is developed to search for the non-dominant solution set. Our approach differs from existing planning
methods in that we implement a statistical quality control mechanism to reduce the voltage drops. A 13-node distribution network is
used to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method.
Keywords: Distributed energy resources, onsite generation, multi-criteria optimization, power quality, variation propagation

1. Introduction central generation, a DER unit can be installed close to the

Today’s power industry is confronted with three daunt-
ing challenges. First, central generation, although cost-
effective, incurs 8–15% of energy losses during long-haul
transmission and distribution processes (Abdelkader,
2007). Second, the quality of energy service is vulnerable
to natural disasters, hostile intrusions, and an aging utility
infrastructure. In the United States, the annual cost due
to power outage exceeds $80 billion (LaCommare and Eto,
2004). Third, grave concerns are being raised by the general
public regarding climate change due to excessive green-
house gas emissions. Electricity generation is responsible
for 30–35% of global carbon emissions (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2007). These issues have led to
an increased emphasis on the use of distributed renewable
energy sources for a sustainable future.
A Distributed Generation (DG) system, also known as
onsite power production, produces electricity from many
small and Dispersed Energy Resources (DERs). Unlike in
∗ account several design criteria, including cost, through-
Corresponding author
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/uiie.
end-consumer. Typical DER units include Wind Turbines
(WTs), solar Photovoltaic (PV) arrays, fuel cells, micro-
turbines, and diesel engines, among others. A DG system
integrating WT and PV units can not only relieve the trans-
mission bottlenecks in peak hours but also mitigate the
created carbon footprint. In fact, a growing number of
firms are beginning to install onsite renewable DG systems
to achieve green computing or low-carbon manufacturing
option (Eberling, 2013; Villarreal et al., 2013). Neverthe-
less, there exist three main hindrances to the harvesting of
these eco-friendly energy resources: power intermittency;
installation cost; and maintenance overhead. Hence, en-
suring energy reliability and lowering the system cost are
essential to the effective integration of renewable DG sys-
tems.
The goal of DG planning is to determine the DER type,
its capacity, and placement in the distribution network
such that the eco-economic benefits are maximized. Sim-
ilar to generation expansion models (Tekiner-Mogulkoc
et al., 2012), DG planning essentially is a multi-criteria
decision-making process that simultaneously takes into
put, loss-of-load expectation, carbon savings, power
quality, and thermal constraints. Existing DG planning

0740-817X 
C 2015 “IIE”
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation
methods can be classified into two categories: deterministic
modeling and probabilistic modeling. In the former, both
the load and the power are treated as constant parameters in
the optimization process (Rau and Wan, 1994; El-Khattam
et al., 2004; Celli et al., 2005). Deterministic planning mod-
els are applicable to generating units with a relatively stable
output power, such as fuel cells, micro-turbines, and diesel
engines.
In probabilistic planning models, the load and the power
are treated as random variables. Wang and Nehrir (2004)
make use of time-series data to characterize the non-
stationary load profile in their optimization model. Haghi-
fam et al. (2008) characterize the load pattern and the
system power as a time-varying process considering de-
mand variability and wind speed volatility. In these models,
both the load and the power are divided into several levels,
each being assigned a discrete probability value. Recently,
continuous probabilistic modeling is increasingly used, due
to advanced computing and data analytics. Based on the
normality assumption, Liu et al. (2011) use a chance con-
straint to mitigate the thermal stresses of distribution lines.
Novoa and Jin (2011) and Jin et al. (2013) characterize
the loss-of-load probability and the thermal constraint us-
ing the statistical moments of nodal demand and DER
power.
Studies (Wiser and Bolinger, 2008; Koutroulis and Blaab-
jerg, 2013) show that maintenance and repair of WT and
PV equipment may account for 20–25% of their life cycle
cost. In most DG planning models, preventive maintenance
is rarely treated as a critical lever to lower the system cost.
Jin et al. (2013) take an early step to jointly coordinate
the maintenance policy with the sizing and siting of WTs
to minimize the energy cost as well as to maximize equip-
ment reliability. Power quality is often manifested as voltage
variation along the distribution lines. In prior studies, the
control scheme for the nodal voltage is often solely limited
to the mean value. The increase of the types and number of
variable generation units causes more uncertainties in nodal
voltage. Hence, the fluctuation of nodal voltage needs to be
precisely quantified and appropriately incorporated in the
DG planning.
This article proposes a multi-criteria DG planning model
to facilitate the integration of wind and solar energy into
a distribution network with dual objectives: first, minimiz-
ing the energy production cost and, second, maximizing
the renewable energy throughput. We extend and general-
ize the framework of Jin et al. (2013) in three aspects. First,
we develop a variance propagation model that is used in a
statistical power quality control scheme to ensure voltage
stability. Second, we propose a two-stage optimization al-
gorithm to sequentially optimize the sizing and the siting
of DER units and their maintenance time. Third, instead
of maximizing equipment reliability, this article maximizes
the annual carbon savings as one of the objectives. Hence,
we expand the generation portfolio by incorporating solar
1123
PV cells as a new source into the DG portfolio along with
WTs.
The contributions of this article are twofold. First, in-
spired by the multistage assembly manufacturing design
principle (Shi and Zhou, 2009), we decouple the corre-
lation between nodal voltages and propagate its varia-
tion along the distribution line based on the mean and
the variance data. We show that WTs and PV cells are
cost-competitive solutions to improving power quality and
energy reliability, despite their power intermittency. Sec-
ond, we propose a two-stage decision process, in which
the first stage allocates DER capacity and placement and
the second stage optimizes their maintenance times. A
two-stage optimization allows the system planner to dis-
card inferior design options at an early stage, hence sav-
ing on computational efforts. In application, this article
enriches the reliability engineering and quality manage-
ment literature by extending it from multistage assembly
manufacturing systems to distributed energy production
systems.
This article is organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 de-
fine the energy reliability and power quality criteria for
DG systems, respectively. The voltage variation propaga-
tion model is also derived in Section 3. Section 4 estimates
the energy cost and the carbon savings under power in-
termittency. Section 5 presents a multi-criteria DG plan-
ning model along with the two-stage optimization algo-
rithm. In Section 6, we demonstrate the proposed model
on a 13-node distribution network. Section 7 concludes the
article.
2. Energy reliability in DG systems
Figure 1(a) shows a typical centralized distribution sys-
tem consisting of one substation and five nodes (or buses)
with D1 to D5 being the power demands. Connected to large
power plants through the main grid, the substation supplies
all the electrical energy to these nodes. In a DG system (see
Fig. 1(b)), WTs and solar PV units can be placed on any
nodes to co-supply the power along with the substation.
Although wind and solar energy can reduce the carbon
footprint and improve the nodal voltage, power intermit-
tency and equipment cost are major concerns. Hence, the
goal for planning a DG system is to minimize the system
cost and to maximize the power output with ensured energy
reliability and power quality.
We adopt the moment method of Novoa and Jin (2011)
to characterize the power intermittency and load variabil-
ity. Let m be the number of DER types that can be poten-
tially placed in the distribution network. For instance, if
the available DER units are a 1 MW WT, 2 MW WT, and
0.5 MW PV cell, then m = 3. Let n be the number of nodes
where the DER units can be placed. For instance, n = 5 in
Fig. 1(b). Let xij be the number of DERs of type i to be
1124 Jin et al.

Fig. 1. (a) Central generation and (b) DG.

placed on node j. Then x = [x11 , x12 , . . ., xmn ] is the decision distribution network. Based on the Central Limit Theo-
vector corresponding to the sizing and siting of DER units. rem, P(x) can be approximated as a normal distribution
The aggregate system power and load, denoted as P(x) and for large n. A discussion of compact distribution networks
D, are given as in suburban areas, where nodal generations are correlated,
is available in Jin et al. (2013).

m 
n
P(x) = xi j Pi j , (1) Loss-Of-Load-Probability (LOLP) is a fundamental
i =1 j =1
metric used by utility companies to measure the energy
supply reliability. It is defined as the probability that the
power is less than the load at any point in time. Let α 1 be

n
the maximum acceptable LOLP value. The energy reliabil-
D= Dj , (2)
ity criterion for a DG system can be expressed as
j =1
Pr {P(x) < D} ≤ α1 . (7)
where Pij is the power output of a single unit of DER type
i at node j and Dj is the load of node j. Both Pij and Dj are If the distribution functions of P(x) and D are known, the
treated as random variables. The mean and the variance of relation between x and α 1 can be explicitly characterized.
D and P(x) can be estimated as follows: This will be further discussed in Section 5 where Equation
(7) is translated into its deterministic counterpart under the

n
μ D = E[D] = E[D j ], (3) normality condition.
j =1

3. Power quality control under variable generation


m 
n
μ P(x) = E[P(x)] = xi j E[Pi j ], (4)
Voltage stability is considered as a key performance indica-
i =1 j =1
tor to assess the power quality. An overvoltage may damage
household appliances, whereas an undervoltage can cause

n
the motors in refrigerators and dryers to overheat. The volt-
σ D2 = Var(D) = Var(D j ), (5) age, especially at nodes located far away from the substation
j =1
(e.g., nodes 4 and 5 in Fig. 1(b)), must be maintained at a
desirable level so that customers’ equipment can operate re-

m 
n
liably and safely. We propose a probabilistic quality control
σ P(x)
2
= Var(P(x)) = xi2j Var(Pi j ). (6) mechanism to reduce the voltage variation as follows:
i =1 j =1
Pr{Vmin ≤ Vj (x) ≤ Vmax } ≥ α2 , for j = 1, 2, . . . , n, (8)
Equation (5) is derived based on the assumption that
nodal demands are mutually independent. In the literature where α2 is the confidence level (e.g., 0.9 or 0.95). Vj (x)
this assumption is often made for the purpose of problem represents the random voltage magnitude at node j and is
tractability (Karki et al., 2006; Haghifam et al., 2008; Liu a function of x. Notice that V min and V max are the lower
et al., 2011). Equation (6) is derived assuming that the wind and upper control limits specified by the planner. Next,
(or solar) power Pij at node j and Pik at node k for j = k are we present a model of the propagation of the variation of
independent. This assumption is reasonable if the distance the voltage that can be used to estimate the mean and the
between two nodes is relatively large, such as in a rural variance of Vj (x) along a single distribution line (or feeder).
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation 1125
where V 3 is the voltage of node 3. Using the same logic as
those in nodes 2 and 3, we can recursively compute I 1 as
follows:
D2 − P2 (x) D3 − P3 (x) D4 − P4 (x)
I1 = + + . (13)
V2 V3 V4

In general, if an interconnected distribution line contains

J nodes, the current leaving node j can be expressed as

Fig. 2. The current and power flow diagram under DER 

J
Dk − Pk(x)
integration. Ij = , for j = 1, 2, . . . , J − 1. (14)
Vk
k= j +1

3.1. Model of the propagation of the variation of the voltage Here Pk (x) is the aggregate renewable power on node k,
Without loss of generality, we use a four-node distribu- and Pk(x) = im xi k Pi k for k = j, j + 1, ...., J. A distinction
tion line, as shown in in Fig. 2, to derive a generic model must be made between J and n as the latter represents the
of the propagation of the nodal voltage under variable total number of nodes in a distribution network that may
power integration. Both Ohm’s law and Kirchhoff’s law consist of multiple feeders (see Fig. 4). Although Equation
are used during the derivation. Ohm’s law states that the (14) establishes the quantitative relation between Vk and Ij ,
voltage drop is always equal to the product of the line resis- it still does not allow us to calculate Vk , due to the unknown
tance and the current. Kirchhoff’s law states that the sum value of Ij . For a distribution network operating in a stable
of the currents entering a node is the same as the sum of condition, the voltage variation between the substation and
the currents exiting that node. its downstream nodes is relatively small compared with
Let Vj denote the voltage at node j for j = 1, 2, 3, and VDG . Hence, the following approximation generally holds:
4 by realizing that j = 1 is the substation node, and VDG
is the nominal operating voltage. Note that Dj and Pj (x), VDG ∼
= V1 ∼
= ··· ∼
= VJ . (15)
respectively, represent the nodal demand and the aggregate
renewable power on node j, and Rj is the line resistance Using this approximation allows us to estimate the line
between nodes j and j + 1. We assume that all renew- current without the necessity of solving the system of com-
able power is absorbed by the local node. This assumption plex simultaneous power flow equations. By substituting
is reasonable due to the fact that today’s distribution net- Equation (15) into Equation (14), the current leaving node
works are generally not capable of handling reverse current, j can be approximated as
which may damage the upstream transformers and circuits.
1 
J
Technically, power flow is similar to a multistage assembly
Ij ∼
= (Dk − Pk(x)), for j = 1, 2, . . . , J − 1.
manufacturing system where materials usually move from VDG
k= j +1
upstream to downstream in a unidirectional mode (Shi and
(16)
Zhou, 2009). Starting from node 4, according to Kirch-
Equation (16) represents an important result as it allows
hoff’s law, we have
us to estimate the line current solely based on Dk and Pk (x).
I3 = ID4 − IP4 , (9) By applying Ohm’s law between nodes 1 and 2, the voltage
where I 3 is the current from node 3 to node 4, IP4 is the at node 2 can be expressed as
current supplied by DER 4, and ID4 is the current entering
R1 
J
D4 . By applying Ohm’s law, I 3 can be estimated as V2 ∼
= V1 − R1 I1 = V1 − (Dk − Pk(x)), for j = 2.
D4 − P4 (x) VDG
k=2
I3 = , (10) (17)
V4
Similarly, by using the chain rule, the voltage of all the
where P4 (x) is the aggregate DER power at node 4, and V 4 downstream nodes from the substation to node J can be
is the voltage of node 4. Similarly, by applying Kirchhoff’s estimated accordingly, and the result is given as follows:
law to node 3, we have
Rj −1 
J
I2 = ID3 + I3 − IP3 . (11)
Vj ∼
= Vj −1 − (Dk − Pk(x)), for j = 3, 4, . . . ,J.
By substituting Equation (10) into Equation (11) along VDG k= j
with the use of Ohm’s law on node 3, we have (18)
D3 − P3 (x) D4 − P4 (x) Note that Vj-1 is the voltage of the adjacent upstream
I2 = + , (12) node. When j = 1, we have V 1 = VDG .
V3 V4
1126 Jin et al.
3.2. Mean and variance of Vj and Ij independent for given k. Now the mean and the variance
of Vj can be obtained as follows:
Obviously Vj and Ij in Equations (16) and (18) are random
variables due to the stochastic nature of Pj (x) and Dj . The 1 
J
objective of this section is to estimate the mean and the vari- μVj (x) ∼
= VDG − rk (E[Dk] − E[Pk(x)]),
ance of Vj and Ij based on the first two moments of Pj (x) VDG
k=2
or Dj . Equation (18) shows that Vj at node j depends on the for j = 2, 3, . . . ,J, (26)
upstream voltage and the downstream demand and power.
A close analogy to Vj is the multi-operational machining
1  2
process where the overall parts variation at a current stage J
is influenced by the variations of the preceding stage and σV2j (x) ∼
= 2
rk (Var(Dk) + Var(Pk(x))),
VDG
the errors from the current stage (Huang and Shi, 2004). k=2
It is usually difficult to directly estimate the mean and the for j = 2, 3, . . . ,J. (27)
variance of Vj due to the voltage correlations among the
To ensure the power quality, the voltage variation on
upper and downstream nodes. Here we present a variance
node j is controlled according to Equation (8) by placing
propagation model, in which Vj (x) is decomposed as a su-
WTs and PV units across the distribution network. Based
perposition of downstream power and load only. Let us
on Equation (16), we can also estimate the mean and the
rewrite Equations (17) and (18) as follows:
variance of the line current as follows:
R1 
J
1 
J
for j = 2 : ∼
V2 = VDG − (Dk − Pk(x)),
VDG
(19) E[I j ] ∼
= (E[Dk] − E[Pk(x)]),
k=2 VDG
k= j +1
for j = 1, 2, . . . , J − 1, (28)
R2 
J
for j = 3 : V3 ∼
= V2 − (Dk − Pk(x)), (20)
VDG
1 
k=3 J
Var(I j ) ∼
= 2
(Var(Dk) + Var(Pk(x))),
VDG
Rj −1 
J k= j +1
for any j : Vj ∼
= Vj −1 − (Dk − Pk(x)), (21) for j = 1, 2, . . . , J − 1, (29)
VDG k= j
where Ij is the current flowing from node j to j + 1 via link
j, and there is a total of J − 1 links in the interconnected
RJ−1
for j =J VJ ∼
= VJ−1 − (DJ − PJ (x)). (22) distribution line.
VDG We use the system in Fig. 1(b) to illustrate how DER
Summation of Equations (19) to (22) results in the fol- units improve the voltage profile across a distribution line.
lowing voltage estimate: Let VDG = 33 kV, Dj = 5 MW for j = 1, 2, . . ., 5, and Rj =
1  for the line resistance between two adjacent nodes. For
j −1
1  
J
this example, the resistance between substation and node 1
Vj ∼
= VDG − Ri (Dk − Pk(x)), is R0 = 1  as well. It is assumed that a 2 MW PV system
VDG
i =1 k=i +1 is installed at node 5, and a WT is to be placed at node 3.
for j = 2, 3, . . . ,J. (23) Based on Equation (24), we compute the nodal voltage by
In fact, Equation (23) can be expressed more concisely varying the wind power between 0 and 5 MW. As shown in
as Fig. 3, the voltage of all nodes increases with the amount of
wind energy. For instance, given P3 = 5 MW, the voltage of
1 
J
nodes 3 becomes 31.82 kV as opposed to 31.18 kV prior to
Vj ∼
= VDG − rk(Dk − Pk(x)), for j = 2, 3, . . . ,J, integration. An interesting observation is that a node with-
VDG
k=2
out a DER unit also benefits from its neighboring nodes
(24)
where DER units are placed. For instance, the voltage of
with
⎧ k−1 nodes 2 and 4 increases as more wind power is injected
⎪  into node 3. These observations further show that voltage
⎪
⎨ Ri , for 2 ≤ k ≤ j − 1,
i =1
variation is mutually correlated long the same line.
rk = (25)
⎪ j
⎪
−1
⎩ Ri , for j ≤ k ≤ J.
i =1
4. System cost and carbon savings
Pk (x) depends on the local wind speed and solar irradi-
ance, whereas the power demand Dk is associated with the Two quantitative methods are commonly used to predict
users’ activities on node k. Thus, Pk (x) and Dk are mutually the output of WT and PV generating units. One is to directly
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation
Fig. 3. Impact of wind and solar power on nodal voltage.
use the historical data to estimate the energy throughput
using time-series models (Billinton et al., 1996). Another
approach, also called the moment method, combines the
wind speed (or solar irradiance) distribution with the DER
power curve to estimate the mean and variance of the out-
put power (Novoa and Jin, 2011). The moment method
is preferred when historical generation data are scarce or
not available for new DG planning. We briefly review the
moment-based prediction method and further discuss the
DG life cycle cost and the potential carbon savings.
dw −1
4.1. Modeling wind power generation
Let vc be the cut-in speed, vr be the rated speed, and vs be
the cut-off speed for a WT. Assume Y is the random wind
speed, and y is its realization. The following cubic power
curve is commonly used to characterize the output power
of a WT system (Jangamshetti and Rau, 2001):
⎧ weather condition. Let S be the random solar irradiance
⎨0 0 < y < vc , or y > vs
Pw (y) = γ y3 vc ≤ y < vr , (30)
⎩ P vr ≤ y ≤ vs
m Lave and Kleissl (2011) as follows:
as −1
Fig. 4. A 13-node distribution network with multiple feeders.
1127
where Pm is the rated power or the turbine capacity, and γ
= Pm /vr 3. The WT power curve consists of four operating
phases: the standby phase when 0 < y < vc ; the nonlinear
production phase when vc ≤ y < vr ; the constant output
phase when vr ≤ y ≤ vs ; and the cut-off phase when y > vs .
Let Pw (Y ) be the random output power at wind speed Y .
The mean and the variance of Pw (Y ) can be estimated by
 vr
E[Pw (Y)] = γ y3 fw (y)dy + Pm (Fw (vs ) − Fw (vr )) ,
vc
(31)
 vr
E[Pw2 (Y)] = γ 2 y6 fw (y)dy + Pm2 (Fw (vs ) − Fw (vr )) ,
vc
(32)
Var(Pw (Y)) = E[Pw2 (Y)] − (E[Pw (Y)])2 , (33)
where Fw (y) and fw (y) are the cumulative distribution and
probability density functions of Y , respectively. As shown
by Karki et al. (2006) and Weekes and Tomlin (2014), Y
can be fitted with normal or Weibull distributions depend-
ing on the meteorological data. For a Weibull wind speed
distribution with scale parameter cw and shape parameters
dw , its probability density function is
dw y
e−(y/cw ) , for y ≥ 0. (34)
dw
fw (y) =
cw cw
4.2. Modeling solar energy generation from a PV system
The output power of a PV system depends on multiple
factors, including the panel size and orientation, the PV
efficiency, the tilt angle, the daily hour, the latitude, and the
incident on the PV panel and s is its realization. A generic
PV output model incorporating all these factors is given by
Ps (S) = ηs As S (1 − 0.005(To − 25)) , (35)
where Ps (S) is the output of a PV cell in W/m2, ηs is the
efficiency of the cell and it is between 10 and 20% for current
commercial products, As is the panel size (m2), and To is the
operating temperature of the cell (◦ C). According to Atwa
et al. (2009), S for a specific region during the course of a
year can be modeled by a beta distribution as follows:
(as + bs ) s s bs −1
fs (s) = 1− ,
sm (as )(bs ) sm sm
for 0 ≤ s ≤ sm , (36)
where sm in W/m2 is the maximum solar irradiance on the
PV surface in a year. Both as and bs are the shape parame-
ters of the beta distribution. The mean and the variance of
1128
Ps (S) are now given as follows:
as sm ηs As (1 − 0.005(To − 25))
E[Ps (S)] = , (37)
as + bs
as bs sm2 ηs2 A2s (1 − 0.005(To − 25))2
Var(Ps (S)) =
(as + bs )2 (as + bs + 1)
4.3. Annualized cost of a DG system
The cost of a DG system typically consists of installa-
tion cost Ce (x), operation cost Co (x), maintenance cost
Cm (x, τ ), and carbon credits Cc (x). The last item is the
income to the renewable DG investor. We first revisit the
mean cost model by Jin et al. (2013) and further derive
the cost variance estimate. For maintenance strategy, we
adopt time-based Preventative Maintenance (PM) policy
for DER units as it is widely used by the power industry
(Bertling et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the proposed planning
model can be extended to DG systems under condition-
based maintenance (Liao et al., 2006; Byon et al., 2010;
Ye et al., 2014). Let x = [x11 , x12 , . . ., xmn ] and τ =
[τ 1 , τ 2 ,. . . τ m ] be the decision vectors, corresponding to
DER sizing and siting and maintenance times, respectively.
The annualized DG system cost is given as follows:
CDG (x, τ ) = Ce (x) + Co (x) + Cc (x) + Cm (x, τ ),
with

m 
n
r (1 + r )h
Ce (x) = xi j ai j Picj
(1 + r )h − 1
i =1 j =1

m 
n 
=φ xi j ai j Picj ,
i =1 j =1
Jin et al.
type i at node j. Although there are no fuel consumptions
for WT and PV units, a major operating cost is associated
with leasing the land for placing the DER units (U.S. De-
partment of Energy, 2014). In Equation (42), cij is a negative
coefficient representing the carbon credits received by the
. (38)
DG investors. ti a is the annual operating hours, and ti a =
8740 hours for a WT and 4380 hours for a PV cell (solar
is only available in the daytime). Pij is the random output
power of a DER of type i at node j and varies between zero
and Pij c.
Equation (43) captures the system maintenance cost with
ui (τ i ) being the cost per unit time for DER type i. Note that
Ri (t) is the reliability function, and Fi (t) = 1 − Ri (t). Costs cfi
and cpi are associated with performing a corrective replace-
ment (i.e., failed) and a planned replacement, respectively.
The times required to perform a corrective or a planned
replacement are tfi and tpi , respectively. The definition of
ui (τ i ) is slightly different from existing PM models in that
the equipment downtime tfi F(τ i )+tpi R(τ i ) is also included
in the denominator in Equation (43). If the downtime is
small, it is usually ignored for computational simplicity
(Chen and Jin, 2003; Elsayed, 2012).
Valenzuela and Marzumdar (2000) argue that the cost
of producing electricity is a random variable, as it depends
on the availability of generating units and the uncertain
(39) demand. This is echoed by Equation (39) where CDG (x, τ )
is a random variable due to the stochastic nature of Dj and
Pij . Particularly, the cost variation of a DG system can be
ascribed to the variable output of WT and PV units. The
mean and the variance of CDG (x, τ ) can be estimated as
m 
n 
m 
n
(40) E[CDG (x, τ )] = φ xi j ai j Picj + xi j bi j Picj
i =1 j =1 i =1 j =1
 m  n


m 
n + tia xi j ci j E[Pi j ]
Co (x) = xi j bi j Picj , (41) i =1 j =1
i =1 j =1 
m 
n
+ tia xi j u i (τi ),

m 
n i =1 j =1
Cc (x) = tia xi j ci j Pi j , (42) (44)
i =1 j =1 
m 
n
Var(CDG (x, τ )) = Var(CDG (x)) = tia xi2j ci2j Var(Pi j ).
⎛  ⎞
i =1 j =1

m
ti c f i Fi (τi ) + c pi Ri (τi )
a 
n
Cm (x, τ ) = ⎝ τ xi j ⎠ (45)
i =1
Ri (t)dt + t f i Fi (τi ) + tpi Ri (τi )
0
i
j =1
⎛ ⎞

m 
n
= ⎝tia u i (τi ) xi j ⎠. (43) 4.4. Carbon savings
i =1 j =1
A major motivation behind the use of renewable energy is
In Equation (40), φ = [r (1 + r )h ]/[(1 + r )h − 1] is the to control and reduce carbon emissions. Let q be the carbon
capital recovery factor where h is the years to pay off the intensity; i.e., the amount of CO2 emitted when producing
loan and r is the annual interest rate. Note that aij is the 1 MWh of electricity. Depending on the type of fossil fuel
capacity cost per MW when installing DER type i at node (i.e., gas, oil, or coal), it is generally known that q = 0.6–0.9
j, and Pij c is the allocated capacity of DER type i at node j. ton/MWh. For a renewable DG system, the amount of
In Equation (41), bij is the operating cost per MW of DER carbon emissions avoided (i.e., carbon savings) in a year,
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation 1129
denoted as Q(x, τ ), can be estimated as in node j should not exceed 100λ percent of the mean load.
Here λ is the renewables penetration rate and λ ∈ [0, 1]. This

m 
n
Q(x, τ ) = q tia Ai (τi )xi j Pi j , (46) requirement is necessary to prevent the upstream circuits
i =1 j =1
from being damaged by a reverse current. With the emer-
gence of smart grid systems, two-way energy flow becomes
with feasible and λ could be larger than one.
 τi
Ri (t)dt
Ai (τi ) =  τ i 0
,
0 Ri (t)dt + t f i F i (τi ) + tpi Ri (τi ) 5.2. Risk-averse multi-criteria optimization
for i = 1, 2, . . . ,m, (47)
Although the formulation in Problem P1 accommodates
where Ai (τ i ) is the operational availability of DER type i. power intermittency and load variation, it is difficult, if not
If the lifetime of a DER unit follows the Weibull distribu- impossible, to find the optimal solution given the random
tion with scale parameter ηi and shape parameter β i , its nature of Pij and Dj . To make the problem tractable, we
reliability function is transform Problem P1 to a deterministic counterpart as
 βi follows.
− t
Ri (t) = e ηi
, for t ≥ 0, and i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (48)
Problem P2:

Min : f1 (x, τ ) = E[CDG (x, τ )] + Z1−θ Var(CDG (x, τ )),
5. Multi-criteria planning model (55)

5.1. Stochastic optimization model 

m 
n

We design a renewable DG system to achieve two objectives: Max : f2 (x, τ ) = q tia xi j Ai (τi )E[Pi j ], (56)
minimizing the energy production cost and maximizing the i =1 j =1

annual carbon savings. Both objectives can be incorpo- subject to:

rated into the following multi-criteria stochastic program-
ing model subject to necessary reliability and power quality μ P(x) ≥ μ D + Z1−α1 (σ P(x)
2
+ σ D2 )1/2 , (57)
requirements.
Vmin − Z(1−α2 )/2 σVj (x) ≤ μVj (x) ≤ Vmax + Z(1−α2 )/2 σVj (x) ,
Problem P1:
for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n, (58)
Min : f1 (x, τ ) = CDG (x, τ ), (49)
μ Ik (x) ≤ Ikmax − Zα3 σ Ik (x) , for k = 1, 2, . . . ,l, (59)

m

m 
n
xi j Picj ≤ λE[D j ], for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n. (60)
Max : f2 (x, τ ) = q tia xi j Ai (τi )Pi j , (50)
i =1
i =1 j =1
Objective function (55) minimizes an upper bound of
subject to
the energy production cost CDG (x,τ ). Note that Z1-θ is
Pr{P(x) < D} ≤ α1 , (51) the Z-value of the standard normal distribution at the
(1 − θ) × 100% confidence level. Ryan (1997) emphasizes
Pr{Vmin ≤ Vj (x) ≤ Vmax } ≥ α2 , for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n, (52) that minimizing the variance of energy production cost is
Pr{Ik(x) ≤ Ikmax } ≥ α3 , for k= 1, 2, . . . ,l, (53) critical for a utility to gain a competitive edge in a dereg-
ulated market. Hence, f 1 (x, τ ) is formulated to meet this

m
requirement by minimizing the upper bound of CDG (x,τ ).
xi j Picj ≤ λE[D j ], for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n. (54) Objective function (56) maximizes the mean throughput of
i =1
the renewable energy. Constraint (57) represents the deter-
Problem P1 is a stochastic optimization model due to the ministic LOLP criterion converted from the chance con-
random behavior of Pij and Dj . Objective function (49) min- straint (51) based on the normality assumption. This is
imizes the annualized energy production cost, and objec- because for distribution networks with large n and Pij and
tive function (50) maximizes the throughput of renewable Pik for j = k being mutually independent, P(x) tends to be
energy or carbon savings. Constraints (51) and (52) stipu- normally distributed according to the Central Limit The-
late that the LOLP and the voltage variation must comply orem. The normality assumption on energy cost, power
with the necessary reliability and power quality criteria. To intermittency, voltage variation, and thermal stresses are
prevent line overheating, constraint (53) requires that the frequently used for the analysis and operation of power
current in link k should be smaller than the maximum limit systems (Billinton et al., 1996; Karki et al., 2006; Atwa
Ik max. Constraint (54) states that the mean renewable power et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011). Constraints (58) and (59)
1130
correspond to the power quality and the thermal limits, re-
spectively. Note that μ Ik (x) and σ Ik (x) are the mean and the
standard deviation of the current in link k and are given in
Equations (28) and (29).
5.3. A two-stage multi-criteria optimization
Problem P2 belongs to the class of mixed-integer nonlinear
non-convex optimization models. The non-convexity prop-
erty is largely due to the maintenance cost function ui (τ i ) in
Equation (43). Monte Carlo simulation, gradient method,
dynamic programming, genetic algorithm, and metaheuris-
tics are among the most popular techniques used to search
for the optimal or near-optimal solutions for this type of
problem. For instance, Zheng et al. (2013) solve a stochastic
unit commitment problem based on a two-stage Benders
decomposition taking into account the volatility of wind
power. Using heuristics, Gallego et al. (2013) solve a large-
scale mixed-integer program to seek an energy-efficient op-
erating policy for cloud computing services in data centers.
We propose a two-stage metaheuristic algorithm to
tackle Problem P2. In Stage 1, we determine the DER siz-
ing and siting to maximize the annual energy throughput
while minimizing the system cost. In Stage 2, based on the
results of the previous stage, we further optimize the equip-
ment maintenance time to lower the energy production cost
while maximizing the carbon savings. Denoted as Problem
P3, the sub-problem in each stage is a multi-criteria decision
model given as follows.
Jin et al.
Subproblem P3-2:
(2) (1)
Min : f1 (τ ; x) = f1 (x) + E[Cm (τ ; x)], (67)
⎛ ⎞

m 
n
(2)
Max : f2 (τ ; x) = q ⎝tia Ai (τi ) xi j E[Pi j ]⎠, (68)
i =1 j =1
where τ i >0 for all i = 1, 2, . . ., m.
In Stage 1 a set of non-dominant solutions is obtained
by solving sub-problem P3-1. A genetic algorithm is de-
veloped to identify the optimal sizing and siting of DER
units subject to reliability, power quality, and thermal con-
straints. That is, a non-dominant solution set is generated
to minimize the energy cost and maximize the throughput
of the renewable energy. The results obtained in Stage 1 are
optimistic because the maintenance cost and the equipment
availability are not taken into account.
In Stage 2, a new non-dominant solution set is gener-
ated by optimizing τ based on the non-dominant solution
x from Stage 1. We obtain the new Pareto-optimal solution
set via weighted sum method. That is, sub-problem P3-2
is transformed into a single-objective programing model
by combining objective functions (67) and (68), each as-
signed non-negative weights w1 and w2 with w1 + w2 = 1.
The best τ is obtained by taking the first derivative of the
weighted objective function and then setting it to zero. The
detailed gradient information with respect to τ is provided
in Appendix A. The final non-dominant solutions are de-
termined by pooling and filtering all candidate solutions
resulted from different pairs of w1 and w2 .

Problem P3:
Stage 1:
6. Numerical experiments

Subproblem P3-1: 6.1. Network topology and load profile

(1) Figure 4 shows a typical radial distribution network con-
Min : f1 (x) = E[Ce (x)] + E[Co (x)] + E[Cc (x)] sisting of n = 13 nodes and l = 12 links with the nominal

+Z1−θ Var(CDG (x)), (61) operating voltage VDG = 33 kV. This 13-node network is an
(1)

m n expanded version of the nine-node system in El-Khattam
Max : f2 (x) = q tia xi j E[Pi j ], (62) (2004) and Haghifam et al. (2008). WT and PV units can
i =1 j =1 be placed on any nodes between 2 and 12, whereas node 1 is
reserved for the substation. Since a substation delivers bulk
subject to electricity to multiple loading points, it is usually installed
at a central location. A 30 MW substation is installed at
μ P(x) ≥ μ D + Z1−α1 (σ P(x)
2
+ σ D2 )1/2 , (63) node 1 prior to renewables integration.
Table 1 shows the mean and the standard deviation of
Vmin − Z(1−α2 )/2 σVj (x) ≤ μVj (x) ≤ Vmax + Z(1−α2 )/2 σVj (x) ,
the nodal demands; no further assumptions are made re-
for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n, (64) garding the underlying distribution. Based on Equations
(3) and (5), the mean and the variance of the system load
μ Ik (x) ≤ Ikmax − Zα3 σ Ik (x) , for k = 1, 2, . . . ,l, (65) are computed and listed at the last row of the table.
The load profile of 12 links can be estimated based on

m
xi j Picj ≤ λE[D j ], for j = 1, 2, . . . ,n. (66) the load of its adjacent nodes. For instance, Fig. 4 shows
i =1
that the load of link 1 is the sum of loads of downstream
nodes 2 to 4. Hence, E[L1 ] = E[D2 ] + E[D3 ] + E[D4 ], and
Var(L1 ) = Var(D2 ) + Var(D3 ) + Var(D4 ). Table 2 presents
Stage 2: the mean and the standard deviation of the load of each
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation 1131
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation (Stdev) of nodal demands Table 3. Equipment cost and characteristic wind speeds (n/a =
not applicable)
Node j Notation Mean (MW) Stdev (MW)
ai bi ci vc vr vs
1 D1 0.000 0.000 i DER ($/MW) ($/MW) ($/MWh) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
2 D2 3.435 0.515
3 D3 3.473 0.521 1 WT1 1200 000 9000 0 2.0 10 25
4 D4 2.063 0.309 2 WT2 1140 000 16 200 0 2.5 10 25
5 D5 1.800 0.270 3 WT3 1080 000 21 600 0 3.0 10 25
6 D6 2.310 0.347 4 PV1 4000 000 7000 −15 n/a n/a n/a
7 D7 2.753 0.413 5 PV2 3500 000 14 000 −15 n/a n/a n/a
8 D8 2.535 0.380
9 D9 2.820 0.423
10 D10 2.025 0.304 and j = v, as is also the case for bij and cij . The three columns
11 D11 2.505 0.376
on the right-hand side of the table define the characteristic
12 D12 2.363 0.354
13 D13 1.620 0.243 wind speeds of the WTs. Given the rated wind speeds, we
System D 29.702 1.318 obtain γ = 0.001, 0.0015, and 0.002, respectively, for WT1,
WT2, and WT3 based on Equation (30).
Table 4 presents the parameters associated with equip-
ment reliability, maintenance, and repairs, and the data are
link. The right two columns in Table 2 list the link’s re-
estimated based on Tavner et al. (2007) and Tian et al.
sistance and the maximum thermal limits, respectively. In
(2011). Note that η and β are the scale and shape pa-
particular, Rk is the resistance of the link k, and Ik max is the
rameters of the Weibull reliability function. The cost for
maximum current that link k can accommodate. In a mul-
a planned and a failure replacement is denoted as cp and cf,
tistage assembly manufacturing process, a close analogy to
respectively, whereas tp and tf are the duration in a planned
Rk is the parts defect rate, and the counterpart of Ik max is
and a failure replacement event. The expected lifetime of a
the maximum machine throughput.
DER unit is assumed to be h = 20 years, and the annual
interest rate is r = 0.05.
6.2. Parameters for WT and PV units The distributional properties of wind speed and solar
irradiance on the 13 nodes are listed in Table 5. These pa-
Assume five types of DER units are available for placement. rameters are simulated values with care taken to mimic the
These are a 1 MW WT, a 1.5 MW WT, a 2 MW WT, a real-world situations. The mean and the variance of the
0.5 MW PV, and a 1 MW PV. Table 3 itemizes the costs power of a WT at a particular node are estimated from
associated with installation, operation, and carbon credits. Equations (31) and (33), respectively. Similarly, the mean
In particular, ai is the capacity cost in $/MW, bi is the and the variance of the PV output are estimated by Equa-
operating cost, and ci is the government subsidies or carbon tions (37) and (38), respectively. It is worth mentioning that
credits received by the investors in the DG system. In this the substation has a zero power variance as the electricity
example, only the PV system receives carbon credits to supply is guaranteed by central power plants. To maximize
compensate for its relatively high installation cost. All cost the annual energy throughput, all PV panels are oriented
items are node-independent, meaning aij = aiv for given i towards the south in northern hemisphere, and the PV tilt
angle is set to be equal to the local latitude. The PV effi-
ciency is assumed to be ηs = 15%, and the average operating
Table 2. Load, resistance, and current limits of links
temperature is To = 45◦ C. Unlike a WT that operates in a
Mean Stdev Rk Ik max 24/7 mode, the operating hours for a PV cell is 12 hours per
Link k Notation (MW) (MW) () (A) day on average. Other parameters of the planning model are
specified as follows: α 1 = 0.001, α 2 = 0.9, α 3 = 0.9, θ = 0.5,
1 L1 8.97 0.795 2.43 300 and λ = 1. In addition, we set V min = 0.95VDG and V max =
2 L2 5.54 0.606 4.87 200
1.05VDG . Coded in Matlab, the genetic algorithm in Stage
3 L3 2.06 0.309 3.65 100
4 L4 9.40 0.713 2.87 300 1 is specified as follows: maximum generation number is
5 L5 5.06 0.539 3.04 200 100, crossover probability is 0.6, and mutation probability
6 L6 2.75 0.413 3.65 100 is 0.2.
7 L7 2.54 0.380 3.95 100
8 L8 4.85 0.521 4.26 200
9 L9 2.03 0.304 2.78 100 6.3. Original energy reliability and power quality
10 L10 6.49 0.571 4.17 200 Although the power capacity of the substation is larger
11 L11 2.36 0.354 4.43 100
than the mean system load, the LOLP of this distribution
12 L12 1.62 0.243 2.52 100
system is as high as 0.41, far above the threshold α 1 = 0.001.
1132 Jin et al.
Table 4. Parameters for Weibull reliability, maintenance, and downtime
i DER Capacity (MW) η (hour) β cp ($) cf ($) tp (day) tf (day)

1 WT1 1.0 9988 1.5 5000 70 000 3 7

2 WT2 1.5 10 706 1.7 6000 90 000 3 7
3 WT3 2.0 11 264 1.8 7500 120 000 3 7
4 PV1 0.5 30 000 2.5 4000 40 000 2 5
5 PV2 1.0 24 000 2.1 6000 70 000 3 6

The result is derived based on Equation (7) by realizing

that P(x) = 30 MW and D ∼ N(μD = 29.702 MW, σ D =
1.318 MW). We characterize the power quality based on
Equations (8), (26), and (27), and the results are depicted
in Fig. 5. It shows that the lower voltage limits of nodes
3, 4, and 7 are less than V min = 31.35 kV at α 2 = 90%
confidence. In fact, the voltage profile of node 4 is the
worst, since its mean value is below V min . We also compute
the line current based on Equations (28) and (29), and the
results are plotted in Fig. 6. It is found that links 1, 4, and
10 violate the thermal constraints because their current
exceeds the maximum limits at α 3 = 90% confidence level.
In summary, the original distribution network has a low
energy reliability, poor power quality, and excessive thermal Fig. 5. Power quality prior to renewables integration.
stresses.
parent solutions with the initial population size Np = 50.
The GA algorithm for this stage is implemented in Matlab
6.4. Pareto optimality and converges to the Pareto solution set after N max = 100
Our objective is to appropriately choose WT and PV units generations. The horizontal axis represents the amount of
and place them on 13 nodes such that all the performance carbon emissions avoided and the vertical axis stands for
criteria are satisfied. We strive to achieve the design objec- the annualized system cost. Solutions in the upper quad-
tive using the two-stage optimization model in Problem P3. rant above the frontier are always inferior to the Pareto
In Stage 1, sub-problem P3-1 is solved using the Genetic solutions in either carbon savings or system cost.
Algorithm (GA), and a set of non-dominant solutions rep- Figure 7 depicts a Pareto-optimal set consisting of eight
resenting the sizing and siting of DER units is obtained. non-dominant solutions. It is clear that an increase in in-
The GA algorithm begins with the construction of a set of vestment in the WT and PV units results in a larger amount
of renewable energy throughput. For instance, if $1700 000
is allocated to the DG system, then the amount of car-
Table 5. Distribution of wind speed and solar irradiance bon savings is 32 100 tons per year (see Point A). On the
other hand, if the allocation increases to $2440 000 (Point
Weibull wind Beta solar irradiance
B), the annual carbon avoided would be 52 800 tons, 65%
speed (m/s) (W/m2)
Node j cw dw as bs sm

1 7.82 2.73 2.93 1.92 990

2 6.66 2.64 2.96 1.63 1053
3 7.15 2.11 3.14 1.89 979
4 6.28 2.17 2.96 1.86 986
5 6.96 1.91 2.91 1.75 1011
6 6.80 1.97 2.90 1.72 1013
7 7.69 1.62 3.06 1.89 1028
8 7.31 2.23 3.05 1.79 983
9 6.20 1.81 2.93 1.92 996
10 8.01 1.78 3.06 1.89 1028
11 6.94 2.23 3.01 1.77 990
12 6.31 1.93 2.96 1.89 1001
13 6.96 2.03 2.98 1.94 1015 Fig. 6. Thermal condition prior to renewables integration.
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation
Fig. 7. Pareto optimality frontier in Stage 1.
higher than option A. However, these results are optimistic
because the solutions in Stage 1 are obtained without con-
sidering maintenance cost and equipment downtime.
One advantage of adopting a two-stage decision process
is that we can reduce the search space in Stage 2. Take the
example in Fig. 7. If the carbon reduction goal is 35 000
tons, candidate solutions such as Point A are not eligible to
enter Stage 2. This is because the maximum carbon savings
for Point A is only 32 100 tons. On the other hand, Point
B can be excluded from the Stage 2 decision if the DG cost
is required to be less than $2440 000. The advantage of
reducing the search space becomes more pronounced if a
distribution network involves hundreds of nodes.
In Stage 2, the optimal maintenance time is determined
based on the non-dominant solution set obtained in Stage
1133
1. The new Pareto optimality is obtained via the weighted
sum of two objective functions in sub-problem P3-2. We
set w1 = {1, 0.1, 0.05, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, 0.005, 0.003, 0.002,
0.001, 0} for objective function (67), and let w2 = 1 − w2
in Equation (68). Except for w1 = 1, a smaller weight is
assigned to Equation (67) than (68) due to the range of
the system cost being around 106 compared with the car-
bon savings that is around 104 (see Fig. 7). For illustration
purposes, a set of Pareto solution comprising eight non-
dominant designs is listed in Table 6. The integers 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 imply that a 1 MW WT, a 1.5 MW WT, a 2 MW
WT, a 0.5 MW PV, and a 1 MW PV is installed, and zero
otherwise. The optimal maintenance times are also deter-
mined along with DER type and capacity on each node.
As expected, the final DG cost is higher than that in Stage
1 after incorporating the maintenance expenses. These dif-
ferent solutions allow the system planner to choose a best
compromise design that potentially yields the largest eco-
economic benefits to the stakeholder. For instance, if one
has a limited budget, Solution 1 is preferred, as it is the
most economical design, yet still avoiding 27 370 tons of
carbon a year. On the other hand, if the goal is to max-
imize the carbon savings, Solution 8 is the best; however,
the system cost would increase by 53.8% compared with
Solution 1.
6.5. Reliability and power quality post-integration
Based on the Pareto solutions in Table 6, we re-compute
the LOLP, voltage level, and thermal stresses in compari-
son with the original configuration. Table 7 shows that the

Table 6. Selected Pareto solutions in Stage 2 (SS = substation)

Solution no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Carbon
(×104 tons) 2.737 3.134 3.465 3.803 4.082 4.450 4.774 5.140
Cost (×$106) 1.913 2.035 2.103 2.347 2.368 2.597 2.716 2.942

j=1 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
2 5 4 4 4 5 3 1 3
3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
6 0 2 2 3 1 3 3 3
7 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
8 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
9 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 2
10 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2
11 1 2 0 1 2 1 3 3
12 4 5 5 1 2 1 1 3
13 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 2
τ 1 (hour) 2860 2793 2876 2943 2936 3019 3105 n/a
τ 2 (hour) 2820 2734 2808 2892 2889 3024 3118 2734
τ 3 (hour) n/a n/a 2869 2925 2957 3041 3195 2773
τ 4 (hour) 10 732 10 615 10 743 10 887 10 860 n/a n/a n/a
τ 5 (hour) 7644 7419 7635 7861 7886 8150 8490 7419
1134 Jin et al.
Table 7. LOLP and lower voltage limit (unit: kV) at α 2 = 90%
Solution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOLP
(×10−4) 9.2 9.7 9.2 9.9 9.9 9.5 8.7 6.3

j=1 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00

2 32.37 32.36 32.36 32.36 32.37 32.36 32.35 32.36
3 31.56 31.60 31.60 31.60 31.56 31.60 31.59 31.60
4 31.36 31.40 31.40 31.40 31.36 31.41 31.39 31.41
5 32.16 32.18 32.18 32.19 32.18 32.19 32.20 32.20
6 31.69 31.69 31.69 31.70 31.70 31.70 31.71 31.71
7 31.40 31.36 31.36 31.36 31.35 31.35 31.37 31.37
8 31.82 31.85 31.85 31.87 31.85 31.86 31.87 31.87
9 32.31 32.29 32.28 32.31 32.28 32.31 32.31 32.31
10 32.12 32.10 32.08 32.13 32.08 32.12 32.10 32.12
11 32.15 32.17 32.16 32.13 32.15 32.14 32.14 32.15
12 31.83 31.88 31.88 31.78 31.79 31.78 31.80 31.79
13 32.02 32.03 32.02 32.00 32.01 32.00 32.01 32.02

LOLP is suppressed below α 1 = 0.001 in all eight candidate
designs. We also estimate the lower voltage limits of indi-
vidual nodes at the α 2 = 90% confidence level. As shown
in Table 7, the lower voltage limit of all the nodes is no less
than the minimum threshold V min = 31.35 kV, as opposed
to three nodes that fail to meet this criterion in the original
system (see Fig. 5). Finally, we check the thermal condition
of individual links based on the Pareto solutions, and the
results are listed in Table 8. The upper current limits of all
12 links are smaller than their maximum thresholds at α 3
= 90% confidence level. In the original network, links 1, 4,
and 10 violate the thermal constraints due to the excessive
current flow (see Fig. 6).
6.6. Comparing with tabu search
For comparison purposes, problem P3 is also solved us-
ing the Tabu Search (TS) algorithm. Originally created by
Glover (Glover, 1986), TS is a metaheuristic optimization
approach that employs local search methods in mathemati-
cal programing problems. As a key feature of TS, short-term
memory is used to avoid re-evaluation of solutions already
assessed, thus achieving diversification and intensification
of the search. TS is quite effective in tackling non-linear
mixed-integer programing problems arising from DG plan-
ning (Novoa and Jin, 2011; Mohammadi and Nafar, 2013;
Arefifar and Mohamed, 2014). In our setting, TS is em-
ployed to search for the sizing and siting of DER units in
Stage 1, and in Stage 2 the gradient method further identi-
fies the maintenance times.
The TS algorithm is implemented in Matlab 2013 and
run on a Dell PC featuring an Intel(R) Core 2 Duo CPU
@2.93GHz and 8 GB memory. Figure 8 plots the Pareto op-
timality in Stage 2 generated from the TS-based algorithm
in conjunction with those from the GA-based algorithm
(see Table 6). TS can be easily implemented using a high-
level computer language such as Matlab and also possesses
computational advantages over GA in terms of time. On

Table 8. Link current (unit: A) and thermal stresses at α 3 = 90%

Actual link current for each solution
Link k Ik max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 300 251.3 252.3 252.3 252.3 251.3 252.5 256.4 252.5

2 200 162.1 152.7 152.7 152.7 162.1 152.7 152.7 152.7
3 100 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7
4 300 281.8 273.1 273.1 268.3 270.5 266.4 263.3 263.3
5 200 154.5 159.3 159.3 156.7 159.2 155.5 155.5 155.5
6 100 80.1 93.5 93.5 93.3 93.3 93.9 93.9 93.9
7 100 85.1 85.1 85.1 85.1 85.4 85.4 85.4 85.4
8 200 152.2 159.3 157.7 153.0 157.7 152.2 151.5 150.9
9 100 67.8 67.7 68.4 67.7 68.4 67.8 68.4 67.8
10 200 195.1 191.4 191.6 199.3 193.7 197.6 194.1 191.0
11 100 75.6 67.1 67.1 81.6 82.0 81.6 81.6 83.1
12 100 55.2 58.5 55.9 55.2 55.9 55.9 55.9 55.9
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation 1135
Table 9. Selected solutions in Stage 2 based on TS algorithm
Solution no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Carbon
(×104 tons) 2.868 3.008 3.290 3.593 3.912 4.154 4.380 4.492
Cost
(×$106) 2.130 2.180 2.254 2.404 2.494 2.787 2.906 2.968

j=1 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
2 5 1 5 5 2 5 2 3
3 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 2 4 2 2 2 4 5 5
6 5 2 5 5 4 5 2 2
7 0 5 0 1 2 3 2 2
8 4 3 3 3 2 2 5 5
9 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3
10 3 0 3 3 1 5 3 3
11 4 2 4 4 2 3 2 2
12 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3
13 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 5
τ 1 (hour) n/a 2874 n/a 2805 2834 n/a n/a n/a
τ 2 (hour) 2708 2760 2759 2717 2785 2779 2791 2692
τ 3 (hour) 2763 2787 2728 2845 2765 2808 2806 2755
τ 4 (hour) 10 657 10 545 10 675 10 646 10 699 10 579 n/a n/a
τ 5 (hour) 7480 7 438 7410 7410 7452 7422 7378 7428

7. Conclusions

This article proposes a multi-criteria planning model

Fig. 8. Optimal designs and Pareto frontier comparisons.
average, it takes less than 20 seconds for TS to generate
the frontier as compared with 40–50 seconds by the GA
for this 13-node network. However, Fig. 8 shows that the
quality of the Pareto solution from GA is better than that
obtained by the TS. This is mainly due to the GA having
the capability to perform a global search through crossover
and mutation whereas the final solution generated by TS is
sensitive to the initial starting point. Hence, TS may result
in a local optimum if the objective function is non-convex.
Eight TS-based solutions are also presented in Table 9 for
comparison purposes.
to maximize the eco-economic benefits of distributed
wind/solar energy production system under stringent re-
liability and power quality criteria. A probabilistic voltage
control scheme is implemented to mitigate power intermit-
tency and load variability. We develop a variance propa-
gation model to decouple the voltage correlations between
upstream and downstream nodes. A main advantage of this
moment-based propagation model is that it does not need
to solve complex power flow equations, hence reducing the
computational efforts. A two-stage metaheuristics combin-
ing a GA with the gradient method is developed to search
for the optimal sizing, siting, and maintenance of DER
units. This sequential search algorithm can identify a set of
competitive designs by pro-actively eliminating inferior so-
lutions at an early stage. The numerical experiments show
that the GA outperforms TS in terms of global convergence.
As the electricity service is evolving into a distributed re-
newable generation paradigm, our study can assist large
manufacturing and service enterprises to realize green and
low-carbon operations through onsite wind and solar gen-
eration. Firms can leverage the proposed planning model to
estimate carbon savings, energy reliability, and return on in-
vestment prior to the integration of variable power sources.
For future research, we will extend the model to a multi-
year planning horizon taking into account load growth and
other emerging technologies, such as battery storage, elec-
tric vehicles, demand response, micro-grids, and big data
1136
intelligence. Another interesting direction is to incorporate
a time index into the power parameters so that the resulting
models would be closer to real-time operations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and the
Department Editor for the detailed comments and valu-
able suggestions during the multiple revisions, which led
to significant improvements of the article. The authors
acknowledge the support of the USDA (2011-38422-
30803), the NNSF of China (71201097), and Qatar Na-
tional Research Fund (NPRP 4-631-2-233).
References
Abdelkader, S.M. (2007) Transmission loss allocation through complex
power flow tracing. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22(4),
2240–2248.
Arefifar, S.A. and Mohamed, Y.A.-R.I. (2014) DG mix, reactive sources
and energy storage units for optimizing microgrid reliability and
supply security. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grids, 5(4), 1835–1844.
Atwa, Y.M., El-Saadany, E.F., Salama, M. and Seethapathy, R. (2009)
Distribution system loss minimization using optimal DG mix, in
Proceedings of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting,
IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 1–6.
Bertling, L., Allan, R. and Eriksson, R. (2005) A reliability-centered
asset maintenance method for assessing the impact of maintenance
in power distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
20(1), 75–82.
Billinton, R., Chen, H. and Ghajar, R. (1996) Time-series models for
reliability evaluation of power systems including wind energy. Mi-
croelectronics Reliability, 36(9), 1253–1261.
Byon, E., Ntaimo, L. and Ding, Y. (2010) Optimal maintenance strategies
for wind turbine systems under stochastic weather conditions. IEEE
Transactions on Reliability, 59(2), 393–404.
Celli, G., Ghaiani, E., Mocci, S. and Pilo, F. (2005) A multiobjective
evolutionary algorithm for the sizing and siting of distributed gen-
eration. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20(2), 47–55.
Chen, Y. and Jin, J. (2003) Cost-variability-sensitive preventive main-
tenance considering management risk. IIE Transactions, 35(12),
1091–1101.
Eberling, B. (2013) Fairfield brewery gets mammoth wind turbine to
power plant, available at http://www.dailyrepublic.com/featured-
stories/fairfield-brewery-gets-mammoth-wind-turbine-to-power-pl
ant (accessed January 19, 2014).
El-Khattam, W., Bhattacharya, K., Hegazy, Y. and Salama, M. (2004)
Optimal investment planning for distributed generation in a com-
petitive electricity market. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
19(3), 1674–1684.
Elsayed, E.A. (2012) Reliability Engineering, second edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Gallego, J.A., Ko, Y.M., Polansky, R.J., Pérez, E., Ntaimo, L. and
Gautam, N. (2013) Integrating virtualization, voltage scaling and
powering on/off servers in data centers for energy efficiency. IIE
Transactions, 45(10), 1114–1136.
Glover, F. (1986) Future paths for integer programming and links to
artificial intelligence. Computers and Operations Research, 13(5),
533–549.
Haghifam, M.-R., Falaghi, H. and Malik, O.P. (2008) Risk-based dis-
tributed generation placement. IET Generation, Transmission & Dis-
tribution, 2(2), 252–260.
Huang, Q. and Shi, J. (2004) Variation transmission analysis and diag-
Jin et al.
nosis of multi-operational machining processes. IIE Transactions,
36(9), 807–815.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007) Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Jangamshetti, S.H. and Rau, V.G. (2001) Normalized power curves
as a tool for identification of optimum wind turbine genera-
tor parameters. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 16(3),
283–288.
Jin, T., Tian, Y., Zhang, C.W. and Coit, D. (2013) Multicriteria planning
for distributed wind generation under strategic maintenance. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(1), 357–367.
Karki, R., Hu, P. and Billinton, R. (2006) A simplified wind power gener-
ation model for reliability evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, 21(2), 533–540.
Koutroulis, E. and Blaabjerg, F. (2013) Design optimization of trans-
formerless grid-connected PV inverters including reliability. IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, 28(1), 325–335.
LaCommare, K.H. and Eto, J.H. (2004) Understanding the cost of
power interruptions to U.S. electricity consumers. Ernest Orlando
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-55718.
Lave, M. and Kleissl, J. (2011) Optimum fixed orientations and benefits
of tracking for capturing solar radiation. Renewable Energy, 36(3),
1145–1152.
Liao, H., Elsayed, E. and Chan, L.-Y. (2006) Maintenance of contin-
uously monitored degrading systems. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 175(2), 821–835.
Liu, Z., Wen, F. and Ledwich, G. (2011) Optimal siting and sizing of
distributed generators in distribution systems considering uncer-
tainties. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 26(4), 2541–2551.
Mohammadi, M. and Nafar, M. (2013) Optimal placement of multitypes
DG as independent private sector under pool/hybrid power mar-
ket using GA-based tabu search method. International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 51(10), 43–53.
Novoa, C. and Jin, T. (2011) Reliability centered planning for distributed
generation considering wind power volatility. Electric Power Sys-
tems Research, 81(8), 1654–1661.
Rau, N.S. and Wan, Y.-H. (1994) Optimum location of resources in
distributed planning. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 9(4),
2014–2020.
Ryan, S.M. (1997) A renewal reward approximation for the variance of
electric power production costs. IIE Transactions, 29(6), 435–440.
Shi, J. and Zhou, S. (2009) Quality control and improvement for multi-
stage systems: a survey. IIE Transactions. 41(9), 744–753.
Tavner, P.J., Xiang, J. and Spinato, F. (2007) Reliability analysis for wind
turbines. Wind Energy, 10(1), 1–18.
Tekiner-Mogulkoc, H., Coit, D. and Felder, F. (2012) Electric power sys-
tem generation expansion plans considering the impact of smart grid
technologies. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, 42(1), 229–239.
Tian, Z., Jin, T., Wu, B. and Li, F. (2011) Condition-based maintenance
optimization for wind power generation systems under continuous
monitoring. Renewable Energy, 36(5), 1502–1509.
U.S. Department of Energy (2014) Levelized cost of new genera-
tion resources in the annual energy outlook 2014, available at.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity generation.cfm (ac-
cessed May 1, 2014).
Valenzuela, J. and Mazumdar, M. (2000) Statistical analysis of electric
power production costs. IIE Transactions, 32(12), 1139–1148.
Villarreal, S., Jimenez, J.A., Jin, T. and Cabrera-Rios, M. (2013) Design-
ing a sustainable and distributed generation system for semicon-
ductor wafer fabs. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Engineering, 10(1), 10–16.
Wang, C. and Nehrir, M.H. (2004) Analytical approaches for optimal
placement of distributed generation resources in power systems.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19(4), 2068–2076.
Integrating distributed wind and solar generation 1137
Weekes, S.M. and Tomlin, A.S. (2014) Comparison between the bivariate Now let us take the derivative with respective to τ , and
Weibull probability approach and linear regression for assessment of the result is given as
the long-term wind energy resource using MCP. Renewable Energy,  τ 
68(8), 529–539. ∂ A(τ ) (tp − t f ) R2 (τ ) + f (τ ) 0 R(t)dt + t f R(τ )
Wiser, R. and Bolinger, M. (2008) Annual report on U.S. wind power =
 τ 2 .
∂τ
installation, cost, performance trend: 2007. Technical report, U.S 0 R(t)dt + (t p − t f )R(τ ) + t f
Department of Energy, Washington, DC. (A6)
Ye, Z.-S., Xie, M., Tang, L.-C. and Chen, N. (2014) Semiparametric We let τ →∞, then
estimation of gamma processes for deteriorating products. Techno-  ∞ 

metrics, 56(4), 504–513. ∂ A(τ )  (tp − t f ) 02 + 0 × 0 R(t)dt + t f × 0
=
 ∞ 2 = 0.
∂τ τ →∞
Zheng, Q., Wang, J., Pardalos, P.M. and Guan, Y. (2013) A decomposi-
tion approach to the two-stage stochastic unit commitment problem. 0 R(t)dt + (t p − t f ) × 0 + t f
Annals of Operations Research, 210(1), 387–410. (A7)
To find τ ∗ that maximizes the availability A(τ ), we need
to solve the following equation:
Appendix A: Optimizing τ for sub-problem P3-2   τ 
(tp − t f ) R (τ ) + f (τ )
2
R(t)dt + t f R(τ ) = 0. (A8)
Before providing the solution method for sub-problem 0
P3-2, we briefly review the gradient-based approach for
finding the optimal τ under time-based preventative
maintenance. A3. Optimizing τ for sub-problem P3-2
Let us rewrite sub-problem P3-2 as follows.
A1. The derivative of μ(τ ) Sub-problem P3-2:
⎛ ⎞
We compute the derivatives with respective to τ i for DER

m 
n
type i. To simplify the notation, the index i for DER type (2) (1)
Min : f1 (τ ; x) = f1 (x) + ⎝u i (τi )tia xi j ⎠
is suppressed in the equations below. Based on Equation i =1 j =1
(43), the maintenance cost per unit time is given as
(1)

m
c f + (c p − c f )R(τ ) = f1 (x) + ϕi u i (τi ), (A9)
u(τ ) =  τ . (A1)
0 R(t)dt + (tp − t f )R(τ ) + t f i =1

We take the derivative with respective to τ , and the final ⎛ ⎞

result is given as 
m 
n
(2)
Max : f2 (τ ; x) = ⎝ Ai (τi )qtia xi j E[Pi j ]⎠
∂u(τ ) i =1 j =1
∂τ  τ  
m
(c f − c p ) R2 (τ ) + f (τ ) 0 R(t)dt − c f R(τ ) + (c f tp − c p t f ) f (τ ) = δi Ai (τi ), (A10)
=  τ 2 ,
0
R(t)dt + (tp − t f )R(τ ) + t f i =1
(A2)
with
where f (τ ) = −∂ R(τ )/∂τ . If we let τ →∞, then 
n
  ∞  ϕi = tia xi j , (A11)
∂u(τ )  (c f − c p ) 0 + 0 × 0 R(t)dt − c f × 0
=  ∞ 2 =0, j =1
∂τ τ →∞
0 R(t)dt + (t p − t f ) × 0 + t f  n
(A3) δi = qtia xi j E[Pi j ]. (A12)
To minimizes the maintenance cost μ(τ ), we find the j =1
optimal τ ∗ by solving the following equation:
  τ  To find a set of non-dominant solutions, we combine
(c f − c p ) R (τ ) + f (τ )
2
R(t)dt Equations (A9) and (A10) by assigning appropriate weights
0 w1 and w2 to each objective function. Then we minimize the
−c f R(τ ) + (c f tp − c p t f ) f (τ ) = 0. (A4) combined objective function as following:
(2) (2)
Min : fc (τ ; x) = w1 f1 (τ ; x) − w2 f2 (τ ; x), (A13)

A2. The derivative of A(τ ) where w1 + w2 = 1. By taking the derivative with respect to
The operational availability of a DER unit is given by τ i (for i = 1, 2, . . ., m), and setting it to zero, we have
Equation (47), and we rewrite A(τ ) by suppressing the index ∂ fc (τ ; x) 
as follows: = w1 ϕi (c f i − c pi ) − w2 δi (tpi − t f i )
τ ∂τi

 τi
0 R(t)dt
A(τ ) =  τ . (A5) × Ri (τi ) + fi (τi )
2
Ri (t)dt
0 R(t)dt + (tp − t f )R(τ ) + t f 0
1138

−Ri (τi ) w1 ϕi c f i + w2 δi t f i
+w1 ϕi fi (τi )(tpi c f i − t f i c pi ) = 0, (A14)
with fi (τi ) = −∂ Ri (τi )/∂τi . The optimal maintenance time
τ i is found by solving Equation (A14). To generate a set
of non-dominant solutions, we solve Equation (A14) by
varying w1 and w2 .
Biographies
Tongdan Jin is an Associate Professor in the Ingram School of En-
gineering at Texas State University. He obtained his Ph.D. in In-
dustrial and Systems Engineering from Rutgers University. His M.S.
and BSEE are from Beijing Institute of Technology and Shaaxi Uni-
versity of Science and Technology, respectively. Between 2001 and
2006, he held a position at Teradyne Inc. where he participated in
cutting-edge, cross-disciplinary projects to improve the manufactur-
ing and services of high-end testing solutions. His research is spon-
sored by NSF, the USDA, and the U.S. Department of Education.
He is a recipient of Evans-McElroy best conference paper in RAMS
2014. He has authored and co-authored over 100 journal and confer-
ence papers across the areas of energy, reliability/quality, and supply
chains. His current research interests focus on renewable energy in-
tegration, reliability modeling and optimization, and product-service
integration.
Ying Yu is an Associate Professor in the School of Mechatronics Engi-
neering and Automation at Shanghai University. She received B.S. and
Jin et al.
M.S. degrees from the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronau-
tics University and a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from Southeast Uni-
versity, China. She worked as a software engineer at Zhongxing Telecom-
munication Equipment Corporation in 2001–2002. During 2008–2009,
she was a visiting scholar at Texas A&M International University. Her
research is funded by the National Natural Science Funds of China. Her
current research interests include reliability modeling and system opti-
mization, project scheduling, power market simulation and optimization,
and bidding mechanism design.
Elsayed Elsayed is a professor in the Department of Industrial Engineer-
ing, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He is also Director of the
NSF/Industry/University Co-operative Research Center for Quality and
Reliability Engineering, Rutgers-Arizona State University. His research
interests are in the areas of quality and reliability engineering and pro-
duction planning and control. He is a co-author of Quality Engineering
in Production Systems, McGraw Hill, 1989, and Reliability Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons, 2012. These two books received the IIE Joint Pub-
lishers Book-of-the-Year Award. He is also a co-author of Analysis and
Control of Production Systems, second edition Prentice-Hall, 1994. He is
the author and co-author of work published in IIE Transactions, IEEE
Transactions, and the International Journal of Production Research. His
research has been funded by the DoD, FAA, NSF, and industry. He has
been a consultant for AT&T Bell Laboratories, Ingersoll-Rand, Johnson
& Johnson, Personal Products, AT&T Communications, Ethicon, and
other companies. He was the Editor-in-Chief of IIE Transactions and the
Editor of IIE Transactions on Quality and Reliability Engineering. He is
also an Editor for the International Journal of Reliability, Quality and
Safety Engineering. He serves on the Editorial Boards of other journals
such as International Journal of Production Research and Computers and
Industrial Engineering.
Copyright of IIE Transactions is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.