Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The illustration of the IEEE 69-node ACDN.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The illustration of the IEEE 85-node ACDN.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

The settings of FGO and AOO across all the scenarios conducted within the study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

The results after 50 trial tests for the IEEE 69-node ACDN: a) Scenarios 1 and b) Scenarios 2.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The best convergence curves of FGO and AOO in a) Scenario 1 and b) scenario 2 in the IEEE 69-node ACDN.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

The computing time (second) of FGO and AOO in two scenarios in IEEE 69-node ACDN.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

The results after 50 trial test of the two algorithms in Scenarios 1 and Scenarios 2 on the IEEE 85-node ACDN.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The best convergence curves of FGO and AOO for the IEEE 85-node ACDN in a) Scenarios 1 and b) Scenarios 2.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

The computing time (second) of FGO and AOO in two scenarios in IEEE 85-node ACDN.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The quantity of desired values.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 7.

The result comparisons for the IEEE 69-node system: a) Scenario 1 and b) Scenario 2.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

The result comparisons for the IEEE 85-node system: a) Scenario 1 and b) Scenario 2.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

The illustration of the Chinfon cement feeder ACDN with 55 nodes.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 5.

The quantity of desired variables in the four scenarios.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 10.

The TAPL value achieved by the two appplied algorithms in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 on the Chinfon distribution feeder.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

The TAPL value achieved by the two appplied algorithms in Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 on the Chinfon distribution feeder.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 6.

The optimal solution determined by AOO in the four conducted on the Chinfon Feeder ACDN.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

The penetration level of PVDGs and SCG in the four scenario.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 12.

The TAPL values achieved by FGO and AOO in the four scenario.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

The amount of active and reactive power injected to the grid in four penetration levels.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

The voltage summary achieved on the four penetration levels.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

The power supplied by a) PVDG 1, b) PVDG 2, and 3) PVDG 3 within 24 hours in a average day of each month in Scenario 1.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

The power loss value in an average day of the twelve months: a) Scenario 1, and b) the base system.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

The power loss reduction at each hour in an average day of the twelve months in the Scenario 1.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

The voltage profile within 24 hours in an average day of the twelve months in a year achieved in Scenario 1.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

The power supplied by a) PVDG 1, b) PVDG 2, and 3) PVDG 3 within 24 hours in a average day of each month in Scenario 2.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

The power loss value in an average day of the twelve months: a) Scenario 2, and b) the base system.

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Fig 21.

The power loss reduction of each hour of the four months in the Scenario 2.

More »

Fig 21 Expand

Fig 22.

The voltage profile within 24 hours in an average day of the twelve months in a year achieved in Scenario 2.

More »

Fig 22 Expand

Fig 23.

The power supplied by a) PVDG 1, b) PVDG 2, and 3) PVDG 3 within 24 hours in a average day of each month in Scenario 3.

More »

Fig 23 Expand

Fig 24.

The power loss value in an average day of the twelve months: a) Scenario 3, and b) the base system.

More »

Fig 24 Expand

Fig 25.

The power loss reduction of each hour of the four months of the Scenario 3 compared to the base system.

More »

Fig 25 Expand

Fig 26.

The voltage profile within 24 hours in an average day of the twelve months in Scenario 3.

More »

Fig 26 Expand

Fig 27.

The power supplied by a) PVDG 1, b) PVDG 2, and 3) PVDG 3 within 24 hours in a average day of each month in Scenario 4.

More »

Fig 27 Expand

Fig 28.

The power loss value in an average day of the twelve months: a) Scenario 4, and b) the base system.

More »

Fig 28 Expand

Fig 29.

The power loss reduction of each hour of the four months in the Scenario 4̣.

More »

Fig 29 Expand

Fig 30.

The voltage profile within 24 hours in an average day of a) January, b) April, c) July, and d) October of Scenario 4.

More »

Fig 30 Expand

Fig 31.

The optimal power output of the three PVs while operating within 12 months.

More »

Fig 31 Expand

Fig 32.

The comparison on power loss values achieved in four scenarios of a) January, b) April, c) July, and d) October.

More »

Fig 32 Expand

Table 8.

Electricity price issued by TOUT.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

The specific values of the terms in Equations (35) and (36).

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

The presentation of all types of cost throughout 15 year of the considered PVDG project.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Total annual cost ($) of two cases with and without PVDGs project, benefit and accumulated profit.

More »

Table 11 Expand