electronics

Article
Optimal Placement and Sizing of an Energy Storage System
Using a Power Sensitivity Analysis in a Practical
Stand-Alone Microgrid
Dongmin Kim 1 , Kipo Yoon 1 , Soo Hyoung Lee 2, * and Jung-Wook Park 1, *

1 School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea;
[email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (K.Y.)
2 Department of Electrical and Control Engineering, Mokpo National University, Mokpo 58554, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.H.L.); [email protected] (J.-W.P.)

Abstract: The energy storage system (ESS) is developing into a very important element for the
stable operation of power systems. An ESS is characterized by rapid control, free charging, and
discharging. Because of these characteristics, it can efficiently respond to sudden events that af-
fect the power system and can help to resolve congested lines caused by the excessive output of
distributed generators (DGs) using renewable energy sources (RESs). In order to efficiently and
economically install new ESSs in the power system, the following two factors must be considered:
the optimal installation placements and the optimal sizes of ESSs. Many studies have explored the
optimal installation placement and the sizing of ESSs by using analytical approaches, mathematical
optimization techniques, and artificial intelligence. This paper presents an algorithm to determine the
optimal installation placement and sizing of ESSs for a virtual multi-slack (VMS) operation based on





 a power sensitivity analysis in a stand-alone microgrid. Through the proposed algorithm, the optimal
installation placement can be determined by a simple calculation based on a power sensitivity matrix,
Citation: Kim, D.; Yoon, K.; Lee, S.H.;
Park, J.-W. Optimal Placement and
and the optimal sizing of the ESS for the determined placement can be obtained at the same time.
Sizing of an Energy Storage System The algorithm is verified through several case studies in a stand-alone microgrid based on practical
Using a Power Sensitivity Analysis in power system data. The results of the proposed algorithm show that installing ESSs in the optimal
a Practical Stand-Alone Microgrid. placement could improve the voltage stability of the microgrid. The sizing of the newly installed ESS
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598. https:// was also properly determined.
doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131598
Keywords: distribution network; energy storage system; microgrid; optimal placement; optimal
Academic Editor: Ahmed Abu-Siada sizing; power sensitivity analysis; virtual multi-slack operation

Received: 27 May 2021

Accepted: 30 June 2021
Published: 2 July 2021
1. Introduction
Worldwide, the penetration of distributed generators (DGs) using renewable energy
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
sources (RESs) is increasing to address the air pollution caused by conventional fossil
published maps and institutional affil-
fuel generators and the high maintenance costs of aging generators. Although there are
iations. some issues, RESs are generally considered to be eco-friendly and are also considered as
sustainable energy sources that do not emit pollutants during the power generation process
and avoid power generation costs by mainly using wind and solar power. However, wind
and solar power have intermittent and uncontrollable characteristics, and it is difficult
to predict the output of DGs that use them. The disadvantages of DGs using RESs pose
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
new challenges to the stable and reliable operation of a power system in which renewable
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
energy sources are connected with high penetration. It is very difficult to accurately predict
distributed under the terms and
the output of RESs such as wind and solar power, and fluctuations in the output of DGs
conditions of the Creative Commons
using RESs are very large. As a result, generation–load imbalances occur frequently in the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// power system. This uncertainty in DGs using RESs degrades the stability of the power
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ system and causes recurrent frequency fluctuations [1–3]. As the penetration of DGs
4.0/). increases, excessive power generation, as well as a lack of power generation, causes other

Electronics 2021, 10, 1598. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131598 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 2 of 14

stability problems. The excessive power generation of DGs can increase the voltages of
specific buses and cause congestion in the distribution network, which may cause stability
problems in the entire power system.
Recently, the energy storage system (ESS) has been adopted as an important power
system element to increase the power quality and to shift the peak-load of a microgrid with
high penetration of DGs [4]. The two most important characteristics of an ESS that facilitate
an improved stability of the power system are fast charging/discharging and the ability to
store surplus energy. The first contribution of the ESS to the stability of the power system is
the smoothing of the power output by the use of its fast charging/discharging features. The
power output of DGs, especially those using wind and solar power, fluctuates very quickly
and drastically. An ESS can mitigate fluctuations in the power output of DGs by rapidly
charging if the generated power unexpectedly increases and by discharging if it decreases.
The second contribution of an ESS in the power system is the time shifting of the power
output which is made possible due to its ability to store surplus energy. As large-scale DGs
are connected to power systems, their excessive power output creates new problems, such
as a reverse power flow or an increased congestion of lines. When the power output of DGs
is excessive and causes a significant mismatch between the power generation and the load,
the ESS can store part of the excessive power output in DGs. Then, the stored energy in
the ESS can be used when the power generated by the DG is insufficient or when the load
increases; as a result, flexibility within the power system can be ensured by using an ESS.
In order to efficiently and economically connect an ESS to a power system, it is essential
to optimize the installation placement and sizing of the ESS [5–8]. Technology for ESSs
has been introduced to increase the stability and economy of power systems resulting
from the increased penetration of DGs to microgrids. Therefore, the optimal localization
of the ESS is a very important issue to ensure the power system stability of the microgrid.
In addition, since an excessively sized ESS has high installation costs, many studies on
the optimal sizing of ESSs are also being conducted. Because there are so many types of
power systems, including microgrids, and the purpose of installing an ESS varies, there
is no unique solution for the optimal placement and sizing of newly installed ESSs. As a
result, numerous solutions have been studied using the analytical approach, mathematical
optimization, and artificial intelligence.
In the analytical approach, the optimal placement and sizing of ESSs are determined
according to a set of formulae and algorithms [9–12]. During the optimization process, pre-
defined system constraints are repeatedly examined, and the set of parameters containing
the optimal placement and sizing of the ESS corresponding to the objective function are
chosen as the optimal solution. In [9,10], to determine the optimal sizing the ESS, the
cost-benefit analysis and the algorithm including net power purchase and storage loss were
used, respectively. In [11,12], to determine the optimal placement and sizing of the ESS,
the algorithm for minimizing the annual electricity cost considering spilled wind energy
and a voltage sensitivity analysis were used, respectively. The mathematical optimization
approach uses numerical methods to determine the optimal solution [13–17]. As the
complexity and dimensions of the power system increase, the computation and the time to
find the optimal solution may increase exponentially. To determine the optimal sizing of the
ESS, a mixed integer programming (MIP) used by the authors in [13] and a mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) used by the authors in [14] were proposed. To determine
the optimal placement and sizing of an ESS, a multi-stage operational algorithm used by
the authors in [15], a three-stage MILP used by the authors in [16], and a stochastic MILP
used by the authors in [17] were proposed. Finally, unlike the analytical approach and
the mathematical optimization approach, artificial intelligence does not require complex
algorithms and computational processes to determine the optimal placement and sizing
of the ESS [18–20]. Using a genetic algorithm, which is a kind of artificial intelligence,
the optimal placement of the ESS in the study in [18] and the optimal placement and
sizing of the ESS in the studies in [19–21] were found. Particle swarm optimization and an
artificial neural network were adopted in the studies in [22–24] to find the optimal solution.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 3 of 14

While the solutions obtained with artificial intelligence are not guaranteed to provide the
mathematically optimal solution, they can obtain largely satisfactory solutions without a
complex analysis and mathematical models [25,26]. In addition, a lot of training is required
in advance for reliable artificial intelligence optimization results, and for this, large-scale
power data collection is essential.
This paper proposes an algorithm for the optimal placements and sizes of newly in-
stalled ESSs based on a power sensitivity analysis as an analytical approach. The proposed
algorithm analyzed all the candidate placements within the microgrid where the ESS is
to be newly installed. The objective function defined in this paper prioritizes the optimal
placement, and the optimal size of the corresponding newly installed ESS can be directly
determined from the placement of the installation according to the priority. New ESSs were
installed in the candidate placements where the value of the defined objective function
was the maximum value, and the sizing of each new ESS was determined based on the
power sensitivity analysis. In this paper, the ESS was operated by a virtual multi-slack
droop control. As a result, the newly installed ESS can significantly contribute to the
response to all load changes in the microgrid while ensuring that the voltage stability of
the ESS-connected bus as well as the overall buses was increased. The appropriate sizing
of the ESS can also be obtained rather than oversizing it.

2. VMS Power Flow Analysis Based on Power Sensitivity Analysis

There is only one actual slack bus in the conventional electric power system, and its
purpose is to balance the real and reactive power. It is also called the reference bus of
the system. The phase angle and voltage magnitude of this actual slack bus are 0◦ and 1,
which are the only fixed elements in the entire power system. The existing power flow
analysis is based on these values, and in this paper, newly installed ESSs operated as virtual
multi-slacks (VMSs) in the microgrid. The VMS operation with newly installed ESSs can
participate in maintaining the power generation–load balance by supporting the actual
slack bus. The real and reactive power imbalance in a microgrid with a total of n buses is
given by:
n
∆Pi = Pi − ∑ |Vi | Vj Yij cos(θij − δi + δj ) (1)
j =1
n
∆Qi = Qi + ∑ |Vi | Vj Yij sin(θij − δi + δj ) (2)
j =1

where Pi and Qi are the scheduled real and reactive power at the i-th bus, respectively [27,28].
The other terms on the right-hand side of (1) and (2) are the actual values of the real and
reactive power at the i-th bus, respectively. |Vi | and δi are the magnitude and phase angle of
voltage at the i-th bus, respectively. Yij and θij are the magnitude and phase angle of the
nodal admittance matrix between the i-th bus and the j-th bus, respectively. By applying
the Taylor expansion to (1) and (2) while ignoring the higher-order terms, the linearization
equation for the proposed VMS power flow can be expressed as follows:

∆δESS ∆PESS
   
 ∆δ  −1   −1
 ∆PMG 
    
JPδ JPV K11 K12 JPδ JPV

MG 
= , K = = (3)

 ∆VESS  JQδ JQV  ∆Q ESS  K21 K22 JQδ JQV
 
∆VMG ∆Q MG

where [ ∆δ|∆V ]t and [ ∆P|∆Q]t are the mismatch vectors of voltage and power, respec-
tively [24]. The subscripts ESS and MG denote the values of the ESSs including buses and
the values of the other buses excluding the buses included in the ESSs, respectively. It
is noted that the value for the actual slack bus is not considered. The inverse matrix of
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 4 of 14

the Jacobian matrix, J (∈ R2(n−1)×2(n−1) ), is defined as K. Then, the mismatch vectors of

voltage and power at the virtual slack buses can be calculated as:

∆δESS ∆PESS
   
 ∆δ  ∆P
ESS ∆PESS
   
MG  MG 
= K + K MG  (4)
 
 ∆VESS  ∆Q ESS  ∆Q ESS 
  
∆VMG ∆Q MG

where KESS (∈ R2(m−1)×2(m−1) ) and K MG (∈ R2(m−1)×2(n−1) ) are reassigned matrices for

m virtual slacks (the buses to which the newly installed ESSs are connected) and the entire
power system with total n buses as part of K in (3). KESS includes only the elements of
the newly installed ESS-connected buses in K, as shown in (5). On the other hand, all the
elements of all buses in K MG , excluding only the actual slack bus, are covered in (6). Due
to the fact that the actual slack bus was not considered in (3), KESS and K MG were also
composed from the element of the 2nd bus.
 
K11 (2, 2) · · · K11 (2, m) K12 (2, 2) · · · K12 (2, m)
 .. .. .. .. .. .. 

 . . . . . . 

 K (m, 2)
 11 · · · K11 (m, m) K12 (m, 2) · · · K12 (m, m) 
KESS = (5)

· · · K21 (2, m) K22 (2, 2) · · · K22 (2, m)

 K21 (2, 2) 
.. .. .. ..
 
 .. .. 
 . . . . . . 
K21 (m, 2) · · · K21 (m, m) K22 (m, 2) · · · K22 (m, m)
 
K11 (2, 2) · · · K11 (2, n) K12 (2, 2) · · · K12 (2, n)
 .. .. .. .. .. .. 

 . . . . . . 

 K (m, 2)
 11 · · · K11 (m, n) K12 (m, 2) · · · K12 (m, n) 
K MG = (6)

· · · K21 (2, n) K22 (2, 2) · · · K22 (2, n)

 K21 (2, 2) 
.. .. .. ..
 
 .. .. 
 . . . . . . 
K21 (m, 2) · · · K21 (m, n) K22 (m, 2) · · · K22 (m, n)
From the general definition of the slack bus, the ideal voltage magnitudes, and the
phase angles of the slack buses, including the virtual slack buses, are specified. Therefore,
it is assumed that there are no mismatches in the voltage magnitude(s) or phase angle(s) of
the bus to which the newly installed ESS(s) is (are) connected. As a result, the left-hand
side in (4), which represents the mismatch vector of the voltage magnitude and the phase
angle at the virtual slack buses, is zero, and (4) can be rearranged as follows:

∆PESS ∆PESS
   

∆PESS
 h i −1  ∆P   ∆P 
MG  MG 
= − KESS K MG   = SESS  (7)
 
∆Q ESS  ∆Q ESS   ∆Q ESS 

∆Q MG ∆Q MG

where SESS is the power sensitivity matrix between the newly installed ESS-connected
buses and all other buses. Once the power sensitivity matrix is calculated, it is possible
to determine the power responses of the ESSs, which are operated as virtual slacks, to the
load changes in the microgrid through a simple calculation.

3. Proposed Algorithm for Optimal Placement and Sizing of ESS

Using the Jacobian matrix of the stand-alone microgrid, the power sensitivity between
the new ESS installation candidate buses and all other buses can be calculated as shown in
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 5 of 14

(7). Using the calculated power sensitivity matrix, the total power required for the newly
installed ESS on the i-th bus to respond to all load changes can be calculated as follows:

LPESS,(i,j) = SESS,(i,j) ∆Pj+1,Load + SESS,(i,n−1+ j) ∆Q j+1,Load (8)

where LPESS,(i,j) is the real and reactive power changes of the (i + 1)-th bus connected to the
ESS at all load changes in the microgrid. SESS,(i,j) is the power sensitivity matrix between
the (i + 1)-th bus connected to the ESS and other buses. ∆Pi,Load and ∆Qi,Load are the real
and reactive power changes of the i-th bus connected to a load. The required power for the
newly installed ESS on the i-th bus to respond to changes in all loads in the microgrid is
calculated as follows:
n −1
SPESS,i = ∑ LPESS,(i,j) (9)
j =1

where SPESS,i is the total real power contributed by the newly installed ESS on the i-th bus
responding to all load changes in the microgrid. To respond properly to every load change,
the required size of the ESS on the i-th bus is defined as follows:
n −1
MPESS,i = max(LPESS,(i,j) ) (10)
j =1

In this paper, the objective function for the optimal installation placement of the ESS is
shown in (11), and the optimal installation placement is determined by priorities according
to an analysis of all candidate placements for the new installation of the ESSs.
p
∑ SPESS, f (r)
r =1
OFESS[k] = p (11)
∑ MPESS, f (r)
r =1

where OFESS[k] is the objective function for the k-th pair of the newly installed ESSs, and
f (r ) is the number of the bus in the k-th pair. When the number of newly installed ESSs
is p and the number of candidate placements is q, there are qCp pairs for the placements
of ESSs. Each pair of the candidates contained p buses and the values of OFESS[k] for all
the pairs were calculated and compared to each other. The larger value of OFESS[k] is the
higher priority for the new ESSs installation placements. The optimal placements of the
ESSs would be determined by the buses of the pair with the maximum OFESS[k] value, and
the size of each ESS would be equal to MPESS, f (r) with r from 1 to p. The installation costs
of ESSs would be determined by the total sum of these MPESS[k] values.
In this paper, the objective function for the optimal installation placement of an ESS
is shown in (11), and the optimal installation placement was determined by priorities
according to an analysis of all candidate placements for the new installation of ESSs. The
objective function value can be increased by a higher SPESS,i value and a lower MPESS,i
value. This means that even low installation costs are influential in all load changes.
Figure 1 shows the proposed algorithm for the optimal placement and sizing of newly
installed ESSs based on the power sensitivity analysis.
The comparisons between the proposed algorithm and other algorithms in [9–20]
are summarized in Table 1. An important feature of the proposed algorithm was that
it determines the optimal placement and sizing of ESS at the same time. In particular,
other algorithms using analytical and mathematical optimizations selected the optimal
placement of ESS in the first step and selected the optimal sizing in the second step based
on the selected placement. Due to this multi-step problem solving, many calculations were
necessary to obtain solutions. On the other hand, in the proposed algorithm, solutions
for the placement and sizing of ESS could be obtained at the same time, and as a result,
the amount of computation could be significantly reduced compared to other algorithms.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 6 of 14

The amount of computation of an algorithm using artificial intelligence was determined

according to the parameters and termination criterion of the algorithm, and it varied widely.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 However, in order to increase the reliability of the results, a large amount of accumulated
6 of 15
big data was essential, and to use it, sufficient pre-training was required. However, in the
proposed algorithm, the optimal placement and sizing of the ESS could be determined
according to proposed
1 shows the the objective function
algorithm for defined by the
the optimal minimum
placement and operation usinginstalled
sizing of newly only the
power system data of the microgrid without
ESSs based on the power sensitivity analysis. a training process.

V < εV
f <ε f

SPESS,i MPESS,i

Cp
q

qCp

 SP ESS , f ( r )
OFESS[ k ] = r =1
p MPESS , f ( r )
 MP
r =1
ESS , f ( r )

Figure 1. Flowchart for the optimal placement and sizing of a newly installed ESS based
Figure 1. Flowchart for the optimal placement and sizing of a newly installed ESS based on the
on the power sensitivity analysis.
power sensitivity analysis.
The comparisons between the proposed algorithm and other algorithms in [9–20] are
Table 1. Comparison
summarized in Table 1.toAnother ESS installation
important feature techniques.
of the proposed algorithm was that it deter-
Type of mines the optimal placement and sizing of ESS at the same time. In particular, other algo-
Reference Optimized Variable Method Objective Function Amount of Computation
Approach rithms using analytical and mathematical optimizations selected the optimal placement
Proposed of ESS in the first step and selected the
Self-defined
Highoptimal
contributionsizing in the second step based on the
to voltage
Placement, Sizing stability with lower sizing of qCp
algorithm selected placement. Due to this multi-step problem
algorithm
ESS solving, many calculations were nec-
Analytical essary to obtain solutions. On the other hand,
Battery cost-benefit in the proposed algorithm, solutions for the
[9] Sizing Minimize annual cost qCp·q p
analysis
placement and sizingSelf-defined
of ESS could be obtained
Minimize at the
net power same time, pand asuba result,
purchase lb the
[10] Sizing qCp· L , L = [(Cre f − Cre f ) /τcsp ]
amount of computationalgorithm could be significantly cost and battery loss
reduced
Minimize spilled wind power
compared to other algorithms. The
[11] Placement, Sizing Cost-benefit analysis qCp·q·8760
amount of computation of an algorithm andusing
annual artificial intelligence was
electricity cost determined ac-
Self-defined two-step Minimizing total cost of ESS
[12] cording to the parameters
Placement, Sizing and terminationand
algorithm
criterion of the algorithm, and it varied
network losses
qCp ·T widely.
[13] However,
Sizing in order to increase the reliability of the results, a large amount
Mixed-integer Minimize installation cost of
qCp· NSof· NTaccumulated
· NH · NG
Programming (MIP) ESS and operating cost of MG
Mathematical big data was essential, and to linear
Mixed-integer use it, sufficient
Minimize pre-training
the total cost; was required. However, in the
[14] Sizing qCp·t·max{CG, WG, PG }
optimization proposed algorithm, programming
the optimal(MILP) placement
maximize andthe total benefit
sizing of the ESS could be determined
[15] Placement, Sizing MILP Minimize operational cost qCp· T ·K · NS
according to the objective function defined Minimizebythethesumminimum
of the operation using only the
[16] Placement, Sizing MILP qCp· T · I
power system data of the microgrid withoutgeneration a trainingcost process.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 7 of 14

Table 1. Cont.

Type of
Reference Optimized Variable Method Objective Function Amount of Computation
Approach
Minimize operating cost and
[17] Placement, Sizing Stochastic MILP qCp·max{(ε· T ·Ω g · T ), (ε· T ·Ωrg ), B}
installation cost of ESS
[18] Placement Genetic algorithm (GA) Minimize hourly social cost Depending on parameters of GA
GA and sequential
[19] Placement, Sizing Minimize whole cost Depending on parameters of GA
quadratic programming
Artificial
Minimize voltage deviation
intelligence [20] Placement, Sizing GA Depending on parameters of GA
and power loss
Depending on parameters of GA
GA and particle swarm Minimize cost related to power and termination criteria/
[21] Placement, Sizing
optimization (PSO) system stability Depending on parameters of PSO
and maximum iteration
Depending on parameters of PSO
[22] Placement, Sizing PSO Minimize whole cost
and maximum iteration
Maximize profit of distribution Depending on parameters of PSO
[23] Placement, Sizing PSO
company and maximum iteration
Artificial neural Depending on parameters of ANN
[24] Sizing Minimize cost related to ESS
network (ANN) including training big data

4. Simulation Results
The proposed algorithm for the optimal placement and sizing of newly installed ESSs
was applied to the stand-alone microgrid in South Korea. This stand-alone microgrid
reflects actual power system data; the one-line diagram of the microgrid is shown in
Figure 2. It consists of 37 buses in total, and bus one is an actual slack bus with a diesel
generator involved in the stability of the microgrid. The stand-alone microgrid has a total
of 21 loads, and each load demand is shown in Table 2. Six ESSs were already connected
to the stand-alone microgrid at the following placements: bus 2, bus 5, bus 16, bus 22,
bus 27, and bus 31. The actual slack bus and six buses with existing ESSs were excluded
as candidates for the newly installed ESSs. Thus, there were 30 candidate buses in the
stand-alone microgrid. More detailed information on the stand-alone microgrid is given in
Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A.

Table 2. Load demands of the stand-alone microgrid.

Load Load Load

Bus No. Bus No. Bus No.
p (kW) Q (kvar) p (kW) Q (kvar) p (kW) Q (kvar)
5 92.8 9.28 16 214.4 21.44 27 160 16
7 22.4 2.24 17 323.2 32.32 29 84.16 8.416
8 32 3.2 20 22.4 2.24 30 12.8 1.28
9 38.4 3.84 22 152 15.2 33 28.8 2.88
11 9.6 0.96 23 28.8 2.88 34 101.76 10.176
12 96 9.6 24 41.6 4.16 35 68.8 6.88
14 60.8 6.08 26 41.6 4.16 37 144 14.4

The optimal installation placement and sizing of the newly installed ESS were deter-
mined by the proposed algorithm. The voltage stability at the ESS installation placement
was verified when all the loads connected to the microgrid were increased sequentially
and then decreased. The voltage stability with the optimal sizing of the ESS was com-
pared to the case in which the ESS was installed at the optimal placement and the case
in which the ESS was installed at the lower priority placement according to the defined
objective function.
In order to install a new ESS in the microgrid, the priorities for all candidate placements
were summarized, as shown in Table 3, using Figure 1 and (11). A total of 30 candidate
buses were prioritized by the defined objective function, with the exception of the actual
slack bus and six existing ESS-connected buses. According to the defined objective function,
bus 25 was the best placement to install a new ESS, and the optimal sizing of the new
ESS was 0.176325 MW. On the other hand, bus 34 was the most inadequate installation
placement for a new ESS. There was no significant difference in the SPESS,i values between
the two placements; the greatest difference between bus 25 and bus 34 was that the MPESS,i
 was applied to the stand-alone microgrid in South Korea. This stand-alone microgrid re-
flects actual power system data; the one-line diagram of the microgrid is shown in Figure
2. It consists of 37 buses in total, and bus one is an actual slack bus with a diesel generator
involved in the stability of the microgrid. The stand-alone microgrid has a total of 21 loads,
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 and each load demand is shown in Table 2. Six ESSs were already connected to the stand- 8 of 14

alone microgrid at the following placements: bus 2, bus 5, bus 16, bus 22, bus 27, and bus
31. The actual slack bus and six buses with existing ESSs were excluded as candidates for
value of bus 34 was markedly larger than that of bus 25. This means that there was no
the newly installed ESSs. Thus, there were 30 candidate buses in the stand-alone mi-
significant difference in the response to changes in all loads, but an excessively high-
crogrid. More detailed information on the stand-alone microgrid is given in Tables A1 and
capacity ESS is required in order for bus 34 to function in the VMS operation for only one
A2 in Appendix A.
specific load change.

Figure
Figure 2. 2. One-line
One-line diagram
diagram ofof the
the stand-alone
stand-alone microgrid
microgrid inin South
South Korea.
Korea.

Table 3. Priority analysis according to the installation placement of a newly installed ESS.
Table 2. Load demands of the stand-alone microgrid.

Load Bus No. SPESS,i (MW) MPLoad

ESS,i (MW) OFESS,i Priority Recommendation
Load
Bus No. Bus No. Bus No.
p (kW) Q (kvar) 25 1.125109 p (kW)0.176325
Q (kvar) 6.380866 p1 (kW) High
Q (kvar)
29
5 92.8 9.28 16 1.040074 214.4 0.16306621.44 6.378225
27 2
160 High
16
21 2.031802 0.319182 6.365647 3 High
7 22.4 2.24 36 17 2.038183 323.2 0.32127232.32 6.34410229 484.16 8.416
High
8 32 3.2 .. 20 .. 22.4 .. 2.24 .. 30 .. 12.8 1.28
..
. . . . . .
9 38.4 3.84 22 152 15.2 33 28.8 2.88
7 1.842448 0.324621 5.675684 15 Medium
11 9.6 0.96 23 23 1.537929 28.8 0.2970812.88 5.17680534 101.76
16 10.176
Medium
12 96 9.6 33 24 0.872171 41.6 0.168544 4.16 5.17473535 1768.8 6.88
Medium
14 60.8 6.08 24 26 1.424432 41.6 0.275621 4.16 5.16808537 18144 Medium
14.4
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . .
The
14 optimal 1.30429
installation placement
0.324699 and sizing
4.016922 of the newly 27
installed ESS were
Lowdeter-
mined15by the proposed
1.277116algorithm. The voltage3.930692
0.324909 stability at the ESS28 installation placement
Low
17
was verified when1.222718
all the loads 0.3232 3.783163
connected to the microgrid were 29 increased sequentially
Low
34 1.570997 0.451432 3.48003 30 Low
and then decreased. The voltage stability with the optimal sizing of the ESS was compared
to the case in which the ESS was installed at the optimal placement and the case in which
the ESSFigure
was installed at the
3 shows the lower
voltage priority
stability placement
heatmap according
for the to the
relationship defined
between allobjective
candidate
function.
placements for a newly installed ESS and all load changes in Table 2. This heatmap clearly
and graphically shows the voltage stability between all candidate placements for the new
ESS and all loads according to the power sensitivity matrix in (7). The dark-red and white
colors represent the highest sensitivity and zero sensitivity, respectively.
The loads on buses 16 and 17 are the largest in the microgrid, as shown in Table 2. As
a result, as shown in Figure 3, the changes in the load on buses 16 and 17 have a significant
effect on the voltage stability of all the buses. Buses 25 and 29 have a significant impact on
the load changes of almost all the buses and have relatively small MPESS,i values, as shown
in Table 3. On the other hand, buses 14, 15, and 17 have very high power sensitivities to
changes in loads connected to buses 16 and 17, resulting in high MPESS,i values. Bus 34,
which was given the lowest priority by the proposed algorithm, has the weakest power
sensitivity compared to other buses, and it has the largest MPESS,i value.
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 10 of 15
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 9 of 14

Figure 3. Voltage stability

stability heatmap for the
the relationship
relationship between
between all
all candidate
candidate placements
placements for ESS
ESS
and
and all load changes.
all load changes.

new ESS
The loads was installed
on buses 16 and 17at are
the the
optimal
largestplacement (bus 25) with
in the microgrid, as shownthe optimal
in Tablesizing,
2. As
aand the VMS
result, as shownoperation was3,verified
in Figure by sequential
the changes in the loadchanges
on busesin16alland
loads. Figure
17 have 4a shows
a significant
the real
effect onpower response
the voltage of theofnewly
stability all theinstalled ESS, 25
buses. Buses and
andFigure 4b,cashow
29 have the bus
significant voltage
impact on
deviations at the installation placement (bus 25) and at bus 34. The
the load changes of almost all the buses and have relatively small MPESS,i values, as ESS connected to bus
25 can respond to all load changes within MP obtained by (10), and as a result, the
shown in Table 3. On the other hand, buses 14, ESS,i 15, and 17 have very high power sensitiv-
voltage stability of bus 25 is improved. Due to the influence of the ESS connected to bus
ities to voltage
25, the changesdeviation
in loads connected
of bus 34 istoalso
buses 16 and
slightly 17, resulting
reduced compared in high
to whenMPESSthe
,i values.
ESS is
Bus 34, which was given the lowest priority by the proposed algorithm, has the weakest
not connected.
power Figure 5 shows
sensitivity the result
compared to of the buses,
other VMS operation
and it hasaccording
the largestto MPall ESS
load changes when
,i value.
the new ESS is connected to bus 34. The sizing of the ESS was limited to 0.176325 MW,
The new ESS was installed at the optimal placement (bus 25) with the optimal sizing,
which is the optimal sizing at bus 25, as shown in Figure 5a. In contrast to the data in
and the VMS operation was verified by sequential changes in all loads. Figure 4a shows
Figure 4, when the load on buses 17 and 34 changes, the maintenance of normal voltage
the real power response of the newly installed ESS, and Figure 4b,c show the bus voltage
cannot be guaranteed. This is because the MPESS,i on bus 34 is 0.451432 MW, as shown in
deviations at the installation placement (bus 25) and at bus 34. The ESS connected to bus
Table 3, but the connected ESS only has a value of 0.176325 MW. As a result, as shown in
25 can 5c,
Figure respond to all loadtochanges
it is impossible maintain within MPESS,i due
the voltage obtained
to theby (10), and capacity
insufficient as a result, the
of the
voltage
ESS for astability
stable VMS of bus 25 is improved.
operation response Due to the
to load influence
changes of the
on buses 17ESS
andconnected to bus
34. Furthermore,
25, the 5b
Figure voltage
shows deviation of bus 34the
that connecting is also
ESS slightly
at bus 34 reduced
cannotcompared
contributetotowhen the ESSthe
improving is
not connected.
voltage stability of bus 25.
Figure 6a is a heatmap that shows an increasing voltage with an improved voltage
stability during the VMS operation when the newly installed ESS had the optimal placement
(Bus 25) and sizing. In other words, the heatmap shows how much the voltages of each
bus, which decreased due to load changes, are improved when a new ESS is installed at the
optimal placement (Bus 25) compared to the case without the ESS (Figure 3). This heatmap
shows that the voltage increased with changes in all loads on the buses, including the bus
connected to the newly installed ESS (Bus 25). The dark-red color indicates that the voltage
of the case without the ESS increased, and the voltage stability was highly increased; the
white color indicates that the voltage stability was similar to that of the case without the
ESS. Thus, by adding a new ESS in the optimal placement (Bus 25), the voltage stability
improved not only for the bus in which the new ESS is installed, but also for the other buses
in the microgrid. As a comparison case, Figure 6b is a heatmap that shows an increasing
voltage with a slightly improved voltage stability when the ESS was connected to bus 34.
 Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 10 of 14

1, 10, 1598 Compared with Figures 3 and 6a, the voltage stability of all buses improved relative
11 of 15 to the
case without the ESS, but the degree of improvement was less than that in the case where
the new ESS was installed in the optimal placement (Bus 25).

Figure 4. With ESS at optimal placements and sizing: (a) real power response of ESS, (b) voltage
deviation change at bus 25, and (c) voltage deviation changes at bus 34 during the VMS operation.
O.P, optimal placement.

Figure 5 shows the result of the VMS operation according to all load changes when
the new ESS is connected to bus 34. The sizing of the ESS was limited to 0.176325 MW,
which is the optimal sizing at bus 25, as shown in Figure 5a. In contrast to the data in
Figure 4, when the load on buses 17 and 34 changes, the maintenance of normal voltage
cannot be guaranteed. This is because the MPESS,i on bus 34 is 0.451432 MW, as shown in
Table 3, but the connected ESS only has a value of 0.176325 MW. As a result, as shown in
Figure 5c, it is impossible to maintain the voltage due to the insufficient capacity of the
ESS for a stable VMS operation response to load changes on buses 17 and 34. Furthermore,
Figure Figure
Figure 5bWith
4. With ESS
4. shows
at ESS that
optimal at connecting
placements
optimal the (a)
and sizing:
placements ESSrealat
and bus response
power
sizing: 34
(a) cannot
real of contribute
ESS,
power (b) voltageto
response of improving
deviation change
ESS, (b) the
at bus 25,
voltage
and (c)voltage
deviation stability
voltage deviation ofbus
changechanges
at bus25,
at25.
bus
and34(c)
during the VMS
voltage operation.
deviation O.P, at
changes optimal
bus 34placement.
during the VMS operation.
O.P, optimal placement.

Figure 5 shows the result of the VMS operation according to all load changes when
the new ESS is connected to bus 34. The sizing of the ESS was limited to 0.176325 MW,
which is the optimal sizing at bus 25, as shown in Figure 5a. In contrast to the data in
Figure 4, when the load on buses 17 and 34 changes, the maintenance of normal voltage
cannot be guaranteed. This is because the MPESS,i on bus 34 is 0.451432 MW, as shown in
Table 3, but the connected ESS only has a value of 0.176325 MW. As a result, as shown in
Figure 5c, it is impossible to maintain the voltage due to the insufficient capacity of the
ESS for a stable VMS operation response to load changes on buses 17 and 34. Furthermore,
Figure 5b shows that connecting the ESS at bus 34 cannot contribute to improving the
voltage stability of bus 25.

5. With 5.
Figure Figure ESS at bus
With 34,at
ESS (a)bus
real34,
power response
(a) real of ESS,
power (b) voltage
response deviation
of ESS, changedeviation
(b) voltage at bus 25, change
and (c) voltage
at busdeviation
25,
changeand
at bus 34 during the VMS operation. C.C, comparison case.
(c) voltage deviation change at bus 34 during the VMS operation. C.C, comparison case.
Finally, to evaluate the improvement of the voltage stability of the microgrid during
the VMS operation according to the ESS installation and its placement, the root mean
square error (RMSE) voltage was calculated as follows:
s
∆VRMSE = ∑ ∑ (∆VB(l),L(m) )2 (12)
l m
 each bus, which decreased due to load changes, are improved when a new ESS is installed
at the optimal placement (Bus 25) compared to the case without the ESS (Figure 3). This
heatmap shows that the voltage increased with changes in all loads on the buses, includ-
ing the bus connected to the newly installed ESS (Bus 25). The dark-red color indicates
that the voltage of the case without the ESS increased, and the voltage stability was highly
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 11 of 14
increased; the white color indicates that the voltage stability was similar to that of the case
without the ESS. Thus, by adding a new ESS in the optimal placement (Bus 25), the voltage
stability improved not only for the bus in which the new ESS is installed, but also for the
where ∆V i),L( j) is the voltage variation in the l-th bus at the m-th load. Table 4 shows that
other busesB(in the microgrid. As a comparison case, Figure 6b is a heatmap that shows an
the RMSE value in the case without the ESS was the largest, and the RMSE value in the
increasing voltage with a slightly improved voltage stability when the ESS was connected
case with the ESS connected to bus 25 (optimal placement) was the minimum. This means
to bus 34. Compared with Figure 3 and Figure 6a, the voltage stability of all buses im-
that when the ESS is installed in the optimal placement, the variation in all buses in the
proved relative to the case without the ESS, but the degree of improvement was less than
microgrid is the smallest for all load changes.
that in the case where the new ESS was installed in the optimal placement (Bus 25).

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Voltage stability improvement
Voltage stability improvement heatmap
heatmapfor for(a)
(a)the
thenew
newESS
ESSinstallation
installationatatbus
bus2525(optimal
(optimalplacement:
placement:high
highpriority,
pri-
ority, recommended)
recommended) and
and (b) the(b)new
the ESS
newinstallation
ESS installation
at busat 34
bus(comparison
34 (comparison
case:case:
lowlow priority,
priority, notnot recommended)
recommended) accord- to
according
ing to the load changes.
the load changes.

TableFinally, to evaluate
4. Comparison the improvement
of RMSE of the
voltage according voltage
to ESS stability
installation ofinstallation
and the microgrid during
placement.
the VMS operation according to the ESS installation and its placement, the root mean
square error (RMSE) voltage was calculated as follows:
With ESS at Bus 25 With ESS at Bus 34
Without ESS
(Optimal Placement) (Comparison Case)
∆VRMSE
Δ0.0753
VRMSE =  (ΔVB(0.0505
l m
l ),L(m ) )
2
0.0731 (12)

where ΔVB(i),L(j) is the voltage variation in the l-th bus at the m-th load. Table 4 shows that
5. Conclusions
the RMSE
With value in the casepenetration
the increasing without theofESS was the largest,
distributed and the
generators RMSE
(DGs) value
using in the
renewable
case withsources
energy the ESS(RESs)
connected to bus 25 (optimal
to microgrids, placement)
the technology was thestorage
of energy minimum. This (ESSs)
systems means is
that when
playing anthe ESS is installed
important in the optimal
role in improving placement,
the stability the variation
and operational in all buses
efficiency of theinpower
the
microgrid is the smallest for all load changes.
system. Since the installation cost of the ESS is directly related to the installation sizing, the
optimal placement for the stability of the power system and the optimal sizing are very
important issues. This paper proposed a novel algorithm for the optimal placement and
sizing of a newly installed ESS based on a power sensitivity analysis. The algorithm was
validated on a practical stand-alone microgrid in South Korea.
The proposed algorithm uses a power sensitivity analysis to assess all candidate
placements in the microgrid for the newly installed ESS and determines priorities for
optimal installation placement according to the defined objective function. As a result,
when the ESS is installed in a high-priority placement, it significantly contributes to the
response to load changes in microgrids with low capacity. An analytic approach based on
a power sensitivity analysis enables the quick selection of the optimal placement of the
newly installed ESS and obtains the optimal sizing of the ESS according to the designated
installation placement. Due to the simultaneous determination of the optimal placement
and sizing of the ESS, the proposed algorithm could provide a solution with a small
amount of computation compared to other algorithms and it did not require a pre-training
process using big data. This paper compared the results of power system operations for
all load changes when the newly installed ESS was at the optimal placement and at a
lower priority placement based on the defined objective function. Installing the ESS in the
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 12 of 14

optimal placement ensured the voltage stability of the bus connected to the ESS and also
the rest of the buses. The voltage stability was confirmed by the response of the newly
installed ESS to sequential changes in all loads, and as a result, the appropriateness of the
optimal sizing of the ESS according to the optimal placement was verified. By new ESSs in
the optimal placement, the root mean square error (RMSE) of voltage was reduced from
0.0753 without ESSs to 0.0505.

Author Contributions: This research was conducted with the collaboration of all authors. D.K. and
K.Y. wrote the paper; S.H.L. and J.-W.P. supervised the paper. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
(Grant number: 2020R1A3B2079407), the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT), Korea, and in part by
the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the
Korean government (MOTIE) (Grant number: 20192010107050).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. Bus data of the stand-alone microgrid.

Voltage Load Generation

Bus No. Bus Type
Mag. Angle P Q P Q
[pu] [rad] [MW] [MVAR] [MW] [MVAR]
1 S 1 0.000 0 0 0.576 0.057
2 PQ 0.996 −0.957 0 0 0.400 0.040
3 PQ 0.996 0.968 0 0 0 0
4 PQ 0.993 1.032 0 0 0 0
5 PQ 0.992 1.049 0.0928 0.0093 0.050 0.005
6 PQ 0.992 1.064 0 0 0 0
7 PQ 0.986 1.166 0.0224 0.0022 0 0
8 PQ 0.986 1.178 0.0320 0.0032 0 0
9 PQ 0.977 1.358 0.0384 0.0038 0 0
10 PQ 0.969 1.526 0 0 0 0
11 PQ 0.968 1.536 0.0096 0.0010 0 0
12 PQ 0.967 1.544 0.0960 0.0096 0 0
13 PQ 0.967 1.540 0 0 0 0
14 PQ 0.967 1.536 0.0608 0.0061 0 0
15 PQ 0.968 1.525 0 0 0 0
16 PQ 0.975 1.331 0.2144 0.0214 0.600 0.060
17 PQ 0.965 1.578 0.3232 0.0323 0 0
18 PQ 0.996 0.961 0 0 0 0
19 PQ 0.994 1.009 0 0 0 0
20 PQ 0.994 1.010 0.0224 0.0022 0 0
21 PQ 0.991 1.087 0 0 0 0
22 PQ 0.990 1.100 0.1520 0.0152 0.200 0.020
23 PQ 0.982 1.262 0.0288 0.0029 0 0
24 PQ 0.980 1.318 0.0416 0.0042 0 0
25 VS 0.963 1.6690 0 0 changed Changed
26 PQ 0.962 1.694 0.0416 0.0042 0 0
27 PQ 0.961 1.721 0.1600 0.0160 0.050 0.005
28 PQ 0.961 1.723 0 0 0 0
29 PQ 0.960 1.743 0.0842 0.0084 0 0
30 PQ 0.961 1.720 0.0128 0.0013 0 0
31 PQ 0.961 1.718 0 0 0.050 0.005
32 PQ 0.960 1.725 0 0 0 0
33 PQ 0.959 1.746 0.0288 0.0029 0 0
34 VS 0.992 1.054 0.1018 0.0102 changed changed
35 PQ 0.992 1.046 0.0688 0.0069 0 0
36 PQ 0.991 1.082 0 0 0 0
37 PQ 0.960 1.724 0.1440 0.0144 0 0
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 13 of 14

Table A2. Line data of the stand-alone microgrid.

From Bus To Bus R [pu] X [pu] From Bus To Bus R [pu] X [pu]
1 2 0.0092 2.7881 28 29 0.9442 0.4787
4 3 0.406 0.2058 30 31 0.17 0.0862
13 14 0.491 0.2489 31 32 4.7212 2.3934
14 15 0.491 0.2489 32 33 2.8327 1.436
17 15 0.661 0.3351 19 20 0.0189 0.0096
15 16 1.8885 0.9574 20 21 2.2662 1.1488
5 4 0.1888 0.0957 22 21 0.1511 0.0766
6 5 0.1888 0.0957 22 23 2.455 1.2446
6 7 1.2842 0.651 24 23 0.9442 0.4787
9 7 2.8327 1.436 24 25 6.9873 3.5422
7 8 1.5108 0.7659 26 25 0.5004 0.2537
10 9 2.8327 1.436 27 26 0.6515 0.3303
10 11 0.491 0.2489 2 18 0.0251 0.0284
12 11 0.491 0.2489 19 34 1.8885 0.9574
12 13 0.491 0.2489 35 4 0.1888 0.0957
2 3 0.0251 0.0284 36 35 0.661 0.3351
19 18 0.7554 0.3829 21 36 0.0944 0.0479
27 28 0.1511 0.0766 37 10 4.7212 2.3934
28 30 0.3588 0.1819 32 37 0.1888 0.0957

References
1. Barik, A.; Das, D.; Latif, A.; Hussain, S.; Ustun, T. Optimal voltage–Frequency regulation in distributed sustainable energy-based
hybrid microgrids with integrated resource planning. Energies 2021, 14, 2735. [CrossRef]
2. Banerjee, B.; Islam, S.M. Reliability based optimum location of distributed generation. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2011, 33,
1470–1478. [CrossRef]
3. Awad, A.S.A.; El-Fouly, T.H.M.; Salama, M.M.A. Optimal distributed generation allocation and load shedding for improving
distribution system reliability. Electr. Power Comp. Syst. 2014, 42, 576–584. [CrossRef]
4. Ammar, M.; Joós, G. A Short-term energy storage system for voltage quality improvement in distributed wind power. IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers. 2014, 29, 997–10070. [CrossRef]
5. Xie, H.; Teng, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y. Optimal energy storage sizing for networked microgrids considering reliability and resilience.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 86336–86348. [CrossRef]
6. Awad, A.S.A.; El-Fouly, T.H.M.; Salama, M.M.A. Optimal ESS allocation for benefit maximization in distribution networks. IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 2017, 8, 1668–1678. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, H.; Choi, S.G. Deterministic system analysis to guarantee worst case performance for optimal ESS and PV sizing. IEEE
Access 2019, 7, 98875–98892. [CrossRef]
8. Wong, L.A.; Ramachandaramurthy, V.K.; Walker, S.L.; Ekanayake, J.B. Optimal placement and sizing of battery energy storage
system considering the duck curve phenomenon. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 197236–197248. [CrossRef]
9. Yang, Y.; Li, H.; Aichhorn, A.; Zheng, J.; Greenleaf, M. Sizing strategy of distributed battery storage system with high penetration
of photovoltaic for voltage regulation and peak load shaving. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 982–991. [CrossRef]
10. Ru, Y.; Kleissl, J.; Martinez, S. Storage size determination for grid-connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy
2013, 4, 68–81. [CrossRef]
11. Atwa, Y.M.; El-Saadany, E.F. Optimal allocation of ESS in distribution systems with a high penetration of wind energy. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2010, 25, 1815–1822. [CrossRef]
12. Giannitrapani, A.; Paoletti, S.; Vicino, A.; Zarrilli, D. Optimal Allocation of Energy Storage Systems for Voltage Control in LV
Distribution Networks. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017, 8, 2859–2870. [CrossRef]
13. Bahramirad, S.; Reder, W.; Khodaei, A. Reliability-constrained optimal sizing of energy storage system in a microgrid. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 2012, 3, 2056–2062. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, S.X.; Gooi, H.B.; Wang, M.Q. Sizing of energy storage for microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2012, 3, 142–151. [CrossRef]
15. Miranda, I.; Silva, N.; Leite, H. A holistic approach to the integration of battery energy storage systems in island electric grids
with high wind penetration. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 775–785. [CrossRef]
16. Pandzic, H.; Wang, Y.; Qiu, T.; Dvorkin, Y.; Kirschen, D.S. Near-optimal method for siting and sizing of distributed storage in a
transmission network. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 30, 2288–2300. [CrossRef]
17. Fernández-Blanco, R.; Dvorkin, Y.; Xu, B.; Wang, Y.; Kirschen, D.S. Optimal energy storage siting and sizing: A WECC case study.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2017, 8, 733–743. [CrossRef]
18. Ghofrani, M.; Arabali, A.; Etezadi-Amoli, M.; Fadali, M.S. A Framework for optimal placement of energy storage units within a
power system with high wind penetration. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 434–442. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2021, 10, 1598 14 of 14

19. Carpinelli, G.; Celli, G.; Mocci, S.; Mottola, F.; Pilo, F.; Proto, D. Optimal integration of distributed energy storage devices in smart
grids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2013, 4, 985–995. [CrossRef]
20. Salee, S.; Wirasanti, P. Optimal siting and sizing of battery energy storage systems for grid-supporting in electrical distribution
network. In Proceedings of the 2018 International ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and
Telecommunications Engineering, Chiang Rai, Thailand, 25–28 February 2018; pp. 100–105.
21. Boonluk, P.; Siritaratiwat, A.; Fuangfoo, P.; Khunkitti, S. Optimal siting and sizing of battery energy storage systems for
distribution network of distribution system operators. Batteries 2020, 6, 56. [CrossRef]
22. Calderaro, V.; Galdi, V.; Graber, G.; Piccolo, A. Optimal siting and sizing of stationary supercapacitors in a metro network using
PSO. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Seville, Spain, 17–19 March 2015;
pp. 2680–2685.
23. Saboori, H.; Hemmati, R. Maximizing DISCO profit in active distribution networks by optimal planning of energy storage
systems and distributed generators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 365–372. [CrossRef]
24. Brekken, T.K.A.; Yokochi, A.; Jouanne, A.V.; Yen, Z.Z.; Hapke, H.M.; Halamay, D.A. Optimal energy storage sizing and control for
wind power applications. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2010, 2, 69–77. [CrossRef]
25. Zhao, S.; Blaabjerg, F.; Wang, H. An overview of artificial intelligence applications for power electronics. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2021, 36, 4633–4658. [CrossRef]
26. Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Horan, B.; Soon, T.K.; Rahmani, R.; Oo, A.M.T.; Mekhilef, S.; Stojcevski, A. State of the art artificial
intelligence-based MPPT techniques for mitigating partial shading effects on PV systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 64, 435–455. [CrossRef]
27. Karimi, Y.; Oraee, H.; Guerrero, J.M. Decentralized method for load sharing and power management in a hybrid single/three
phase-islanded microgrid consisting of hybrid source PV/battery units. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 32, 6135–6144. [CrossRef]
28. Saadat, H. Power System Analysis; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 232–240.