www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Hybrid GWO‑PSO based optimal

placement and sizing of multiple
PV‑DG units for power loss
reduction and voltage profile
improvement
Assen Beshr Alyu 1, Ayodeji Olalekan Salau 2,5*, Baseem Khan 3 & Joy Nnenna Eneh 4

Distributed generation (DG) is integrated in a passive distribution system to reduce power loss,
improve voltage profile, and increase power output. To reap the most benefits of the distribution
system, the best location and appropriate DG size must be determined. This paper presents a hybrid
Grey wolf Optimizer (GWO) and Particle swarm optimization (PSO) approach for determining the
best placement and DG size while considering a multi-objective function that includes active and
reactive power loss minimization as well as voltage profile enhancement. Dilla distribution system was
used as a case study and the weighted technique was used to convert to a single objective function
while taking into account multiple constraints such as bus voltage limit, DG output limit, and branch
current limit. DG penetration is limited to up 60% of the total active load on the feeder and a forward–
backward sweep load flow algorithm was used to generate the load flow solutions. The findings of
the study show that combining three PV-DGs (Case 3) is the best way to improve voltage profile and
minimize losses. In addition, the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO algorithm performed better compared
to the other four algorithms (Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA),
Particle swarm optimization (PSO), and sine cosine algorithm (SCA)) in terms of achieving the best
multi-objective function (MOF) outcome.

A power distribution network is used to supply power to various customers. Power distribution presents a
number of challenges which include high power losses and voltage deviation. Different solutions have been
proposed in literature to optimize the performance of a distribution ­network1–3. Presently, Ethiopia’s aggregated
power loss is 18.655%, which includes transmission loss, distribution loss, and loss due to power ­theft2. The
main challenges that limit the performance of a distribution system are high power loss, low voltage profile,
timing and frequency of interruptions, voltage and current harmonic distortions, and unstable voltage in the
node of the s­ ystem3. As a result, there is a need to improve the performance of the distribution system in order
to make it more reliable and secure. Network reconfiguration, capacitor placement, DG integration, and the
incorporation of a FACTS device are some of the techniques for improving the distribution systems ­performance4.
The existing radial distribution system (RDS) is passive which means power flows in only one direction from
the source to the end node. Network reconfiguration is performed in a distribution network by using tie and
sectionalized ­switches5. Distributed Generation (DG) is the installation of small-scale power generation units
near load centers that inject active, reactive, or both power into a distribution system. The integration of dis-
tributed generation (DG) into a distribution system has numerous advantages, which include reduced power
loss, improved voltage profile, and increased system ­reliability6. The term "Distributed Generation (DG)" refers
to small-scale electric power generation near the load side (typically 1 kW–50 MW)7. To achieve the maximum
benefit of DG integration, DGs can be optimally located and sized in a distribution system. Improper place-
ment and sizing of DGs leads to higher power loss and unreliability of the distribution system. There are five

1
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia. 2Department of
Electrical/Electronics and Computer Engineering, Afe Babalola University, Ado‑Ekiti, Nigeria. 3Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. 4Department of Electronic
Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. 5Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of
Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. *email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

common methods for optimizing the placement and sizing of DG and FACTS devices. These are: Analytical,
artificial neural network (ANN)-based, meta-heuristic, sensitivity approaches, and combination of sensitivity
approaches and meta-heuristic ­approaches8–10. Other methods have been used in literature, but we have used a
hybrid of Grey wolf Optimizer (GWO) and Particle swarm optimization (PSO) method. The main advantage of
PSO is that there are fewer parameters to configure. In a high-dimensional search field, PSO finds the optimal
solution through particle interaction, but it converges to the global optimum very slowly. In addition, it produces
low-quality results for complex and large datasets. The Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), a swarm-based
metaheuristic optimization technique (MOT) inspired by the foraging habits of humpback whales, has so far
yielded promising results. However, the WOA, like all MOTs, has drawbacks. Some of these disadvantages include
a slow rate of convergence and a limited capacity for exploitation. GWO algorithm is simple in principle, fast
in terms of speed, has high search precision, and easy to realize, also has better exploitation ability and is easily
combined for use in practical engineering problems. Our proposed algorithm combines the advantages of the
two algorithms, which means that PSO has a higher exploration rate and GWO has a higher exploitation rate.

Literature review. In literature, various researchers have conducted research on optimal placement and
sizing of DG in a distribution network for the purpose of achieving technical, economic and environmental
benefits.
In Ref.11, the authors proposed a flower pollination algorithm for optimal siting and sizing of PV-base DG for
loss minimization. In Ref.12, the authors proposed a novel hybrid optimization-based algorithm for both single
and multi-objective functions with optimal DG allocation in distribution networks. Authors in Ref.13 proposed
a network reconfiguration algorithm for reliability enhancement, minimizing power losses and thereafter inte-
grated DG. In addition, loss sensitivity factor (LSF) method was adopted for the best combinations of switches
as well as placement of DG for minimization of losses. The proposed algorithm was implemented for an IEEE
33-bus RDS. The authors in Ref.14 proposed an objective function to find the optimal size and location of solar
PV to improve voltage at all the nodes within permissible limits and to reduce power losses in RDS using the
PSO algorithm. In Ref.15, the authors presented an analytical method for the optimal placement and sizing of
DG to minimize power loss and improve voltage profile with fixed DG size and P-type DG and also used IEEE
33 bus for testing the method. The authors in Ref.16 proposed a method which precisely identified the optimal
location and sizing of DG using three indexes: the Index Vector Method (IVM), the Voltage Deviation Index
(VDI), and the Voltage Stability Index (VSI). The Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO), Whale Optimization Algo-
rithm (WOA), and PSO algorithms were used to optimize DG placement and size for power loss reduction.
The proposed method was validated using IEEE 33 and 69 bus systems. In order to optimize voltage profile and
lower active power losses, the authors in Ref.17 proposed an enhanced PSO method for sizing and positioning of
DG units in an electrical power system. The MOHTLBOGWO approach was suggested by the authors in Ref.18
for determining the best size and placement of DGs in order to minimize power loss and increase the system
reliability. A fuzzy-based approach was used to analyze the problem using both single- and multi-objective
optimization. In Ref.19, the authors used four alternative algorithms, namely, GWO, WOA, PSO, and Teaching
Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) to discover the best location and size for DG. Additionally, a comparison
of active strategies for reducing power loss was offered. For the best allocation of several DG types in a RDS,
the authors in Ref.20 presented a hybrid analytical and sine cosine algorithm (SCA), which uses loss sensitivity
factor to condense the search space.

Research gaps. From the reviewed literature, the optimal placement and size of DG is mostly determined
by considering a single objective function on an IEEE standard distribution system, while the effect of multiple
DGs was not considered. Some of the literature did not use the Backward forward load flow method which is
the best load flow technique for a radial distribution system (RDS). Almost all literatures reviewed didn’t use
a practical distribution network for analysis of the effect of different algorithms for the optimal placement and
sizing of DGs.

Contribution of the study. There have been numerous studies on the integration of renewable energy
based DG into a distributed network for the purpose of achieving technical, economic, and environmental ben-
efits. The main challenge is how to optimally integrate it. The main contribution of the paper is that the PV-DGs
are optimally sized and located using the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO, as well as the optimal number of DG to
minimize power loss and improve voltage profile was determined to maintain the equality and inequality con-
straints. The contribution of this paper is listed as follows:

1. A novel hybrid GWO-PSO technique was proposed for the optimal placement and sizing of multiple DGs
in a distribution network.
2. The superiority of the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO to other four applied techniques was experimented and
compared.
3. Performance comparison of integrating one (1), two (2), three (3), and four (4)-DG to the distribution
network to reduce power loss and improve voltage profile is presented.
4. This study employed a practical utility network for testing the system which is located in Dilla Ethiopia. The
distribution network has a high-power loss and poor/low voltage profile.

Modeling of distribution network and PV‑DG

This section presents the modeling of distribution system including, single line diagram, line data and load
data of the feeder and PV-DG modeling. In Fig. 1, the graphical abstract of the proposed approach is presented.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  Graphical abstract of the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO based optimal placement and sizing approach.

Distribution network. The Dilla distribution system was chosen as a case study for the investigation. The
distribution substation is located in Gedio zone, South Nation Nationality and People (SNNP) Region, Ethiopia.
Three winding power transformers with rated output voltages of 132/633/15 kV, as well as other power system
components, make up the distribution substation. Dilla distribution system consists of five outgoing feeders of
which three have a rated output voltage of 15 kV and two have a rated output voltage of 33 kV. In this study, only
one of the 15 kV feeders which is Dilla one (feeder-1) was considered due to its long-distance coverage which
leads to low voltage profile and high-power loss. The Feeder has 137 buses and a total load of 15.793 MW and
9.792 MVAr. Bus one is the slack bus, whereas eighty-three buses are connected to loads with the help of a dif-
ferent sizing distribution transformer and the remaining fifty-three are common coupling nodes as indicated in
Fig. 2.
The total length of the overhead distribution line of the Dilla feeder is 30.83 km. The type of conductor used
for the distribution lines are stranded conductors of type AAC-50 and Cu-35. These overhead conductors are
used to distribute 15 kV voltage from the Dilla substation to the eighty-three distribution transformers. The
line impedance is dependent on the length of the sections and the conductor type. The stranded conductors
used are AAC 50 ­mm2, where R = 0.5785 Ω/km and X = 0.347 Ω/km, and Cu 35 ­mm2, where R = 0.659 Ω/km
and X = 0.374 Ω/km.
The following assumptions are used for the load model.

i. The P & Q of each node is taken as 0.85*kVA and 0.527*kVA of the transformer rating respectively.
ii. The effect of line charging capacitance was neglected due to the short length of the distribution system.

PV‑DG modeling. Load flow analysis of the distribution system considering DG was performed by mod-
eling the DG. The DG is modeled as either constant active and reactive power (P & Q) or constant active power
and voltage (PV) ­model21. The P & Q DG model is identified with a constant power load model except that
current is absorbed in the load model and injected into a bus for the DG model. Distributed generation is repre-
sented in this model as a negative load that changes the direction of the current flow in the radial system (acting
as a generator)22. Constant active power and constant voltage models have the capability of controlling their
reactive power within some limit, to be able to control their voltage within the bus in which they are located.
When modeled as a constant active power and constant voltage source, the total reactive power keeps the voltage
at a specific value. For this study, PV-DGs are modeled as a constant P & Q model. If ­Pli and Q ­ li are active and
reactive power absorbed by the load at bus i before the integration of DG, then after integration, the new active
and reactive power absorbed at bus i can be formulated as:
Pnli = Pli − PDG , (1)

Qnli = Qli − QDG , (2)

where ­Pnli and ­Qnli are the new real and reactive powers consumed at bus I, respectively.
PDG and QDG are the real and reactive powers of DG but QDG is zero because the DG units for this study is
solar-based and operating at unity power factor (pf).

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

43
32 33 91 90 89 88
41 87 86
34 35
39 40 31 85
42 100 99
38 30
94 95 84
92
37 29 71 93 97 83
70 96
69 76
28 98
36 67 78 79
77 80 81
27 82
66 68 73 74
1 101 14
2 3 12 13
SUB 4 5 72 9
. 11
6 7 8 75 10
44
102 106 109
45 52
53 103 105 110
46 55 111
107
56 54 104 112
108 15
57 59 113
114 16
58 60 47
61 115
17
48 137 116
62 25
64 26 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 122
63 49 117
65 118
135 132
50 133 129
51 123
130 131 127
119
136 134 124 126
128
125 120

Compact transformer 121

Indoor transformer
Outdoor transformer
Bus/Node

Figure 2.  Single line diagram of Dilla one feeder.

Problem formulation
The backward forward sweep (BFS) approaches utilized for the distribution system power flow analysis, as well
as the defined objectives and restrictions, are presented in this section. The goal of this research is to discover
the best position and sizing of DG units for the current Dilla-1 system by minimizing the objective functions
in real time.

Distribution system power flow analysis. Consider the following n-branch radial distribution network
without a PV unit as shown Fig. 3a. ­Pbi and ­PDi are the active power flow through branch i and active power
demand at the bus i respectively, while Q­ bi and Q
­ Di are the reactive power flow through branch i and reactive
power demand at bus i respectively. In the absence of a PV unit, the total active and reactive power loss (­ PL and
­QL) in the distribution system can be calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4) 23–25.
n 2 + Q2
 Pbi bi
PL = Ri , (3)
i=1
|Vi |2

n 2 + Q2
 Pbi bi
QL = Xi , (4)
i=1
|Vi |2

where ­Ri is the resistance of branch i, ­Xi is the reactance of branch I, and |Vi | is the voltage magnitude at bus i.
We assumed that the inverter-based PV technology is capable of delivering active power and delivering or
consuming reactive power. The relationship between the active and reactive power (­ PPVk and Q ­ PVk) of PV at
integrated bus k is given by Eq. (5) 26.
QPVK = αk PPVK , (5)
where αk = ± tan(cos−1 (pfpvk )). Its
value is positive for the PV unit supplying reactive power and negative for
the PV unit consuming reactive power; and pfpvk is the operating power factor of the PV unit at bus k.
The active and reactive power flowing from the source to bus k are lowered due to the PV unit’s active and
reactive power injected at bus k as shown in Fig. 3b 25, while the power flow in the remaining sections are

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  Radial distribution system: (a) without PV unit and (b) with PV unit.

unaffected. Accordingly, the active power loss defined by Eq. (3) and reactive power defined by Eq. (4) can be
rewritten as follows:
k n 2 k n 2
 (Pbi − PPVK )2  Pbi  (Qbi − QPVK )2  Qbi
PLPV = Ri + Ri + Ri + Ri . (6)
i=1
|Vi |2 i=k+1
|Vi |2 i=1
|Vi |2 i=k+1
|Vi |2

Substituting Eqs. (3) and (5) into Eq. (6), we obtained Eqs. (7) and (8):
k 2 k
 PPV − 2Pbi PPVk  αk2 PPV
2 − 2Qbi αk PPVk
PLPV = k
Ri + k
Ri + PL , (7)
i=1
|Vi |2 i=1
|Vi |2

k 2 k
 PPV − 2Pbi PPVk  αk2 PPV
2 − 2Qbi αk PPVk
QLPV = k
Xi + k
Xi + QL . (8)
i=1
|Vi |2 i
|Vi |2

For this study, the PV system has unity power factor which means it generates only active power or αk = 0.

Objective function and system constraints. This subsection presents the formulation of the objec-
tive function which consists of loss minimization and voltage profile improvement and also system constraints
including the equality and inequality constraints.

Objective function. The objective functions for this study are power loss minimization and voltage profile
improvement.

A. Loss minimization

The feeders total active power losses can be calculated using Eq. (9).

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

nb

f1 = Ri × Ii2 . (9)
i=1

Similarly, the feeders total reactive power losses can be computed using Eq. (10).
nb

f2 = Xi × Ii2 , (10)
i=1

where f1 and f2 are the first and second objective functions associated with the system power loss minimization.
Ii is the current of line i, Ri is the resistance of the ith line, nb is the number of system branches.
The percentage of total power loss reduction can be calculated using Eqs. (11) and (12).
PL − PLPV
% Active loss reduction = × 100, (11)
PLPV

QL − QLPV
% Reactive loss reduction = × 100. (12)
QLPV

B. Voltage profile improvement

The second objective function is improving the voltage profile of the distribution network which is the com-
mutative voltage deviation index described as follows:
N

f3 = (1 − Vi )2 . (13)
i=1

Vi is the voltage of the ith bus, N is the number of the system buses.
The formulation of the general multi-objective function (MOF) and its conversion into a single objective
using the weight sum method is given by:
Minimize (MOF) = Min(w1 × f1 + w2 × f2 + w3 × f3 ), (14)
3

where wi = 1.
i=1
The advantage of using the weighted sum method includes its ease of use, specifically when working with
convex problems. Its disadvantage includes not being able to find all solutions in a non-convex solution space
and not having a straightforward way of assigning the weights of the objectives. The determination of the proper
weighting factors is also dependent on the experience and concerns of the system planner. For this study, our
major concern is active power loss due to its impact on utility profit as it accounts for 50% or more of utility
profit loss and unsatisfaction of the consumers. Different weight probabilities are tested, and one weight factor
combination that provides a minimum objective function as presented in the result section.

System constraint. The system constraints are categorized as follows:

A. Equality constraints

The active and reactive power flow in the RDS is included in the equality constraints and are calculated in
Eqs. (15) and (16).
np n nl
  
Ps + Ppv = PD (h) + Ploss(j) , (15)
i=1 h=1 j=1

n
 nl

Qs = QD (h) + Qloss(j) , (16)
h=1 j=1

where,Ps and Qs are the supplied active power and the supplied reactive power at the substation, respectively.
PD and QD are the active load and reactive load, respectively, while nl is the number of lines in the RDS.

B. Inequality constraint
(a) Bust voltage limits
Vmin ≤ Vi ≤ Vmax , (17)
where ­Vmin and ­Vmax are the lower and the upper voltage limits. Where Vmin = 0.95 pu and Vmax = 1.05 pu.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

(b) Total injected active power limit

The active power of the PV should be equal to or less than the active power load. In this case, the maximum
limit of the total capacity of DG units is 60% of the total kW loading of the network, while its minimum limit is
zero. This can be calculated using Eq. (18).
np n
 
Ppv (i) ≤ PD (i), (18)
i=1 i=1

where, ­PD is the active load and ­Ppv is injected active power of the PV units.

(c) Line thermal units

The line thermal unit can be calculated using Eq. (19).

Ik ≤ Imax,k k = 1, 2, 3 . . . Nb, (19)
where Nb is the number of branches in the network.

Optimization algorithm. This section describes the fundamental principle and mathematical modeling of
the grey wolf optimizer (GWO) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) method and also the proposed hybrid
GWO-PSO including the flowchart of proposed method.

Grey wolf optimizer. The Grey wolf optimizer (GWO) algorithm was developed by Mirjalili and L ­ ewis27. Grey
wolves are social animals with strict social hierarchy. There are four types of grey wolves within the leadership
hierarchy of the GWO algorithm. These are alpha, beta, delta, and omega wolves. In the GWO algorithm, alpha
wolves represent the solution with the best result. Beta and delta wolves represent the second and third best solu-
tions in the population. Omega wolves are the best solution candidates. The mathematical modelling of GWO
is based on the social hierarchy and hunting behavior of grey wolves. Grey wolves’ hunting tactics includes the
following three main parts: (1) Tracking, chasing, and approaching the prey. (2) Pursuing, encircling, and har-
assing the prey till it stops moving. (3) Attacking the prey. Encircling the prey is modeled mathematically using
the following equations:
r = lim x, (20)
x→∞

−
→ − → − → −
→ 
 
D =  C ∗ X p (t) − X (t), (21)

−
→ −
→ −
→ − → − → −
→ 
 
X (t + 1) = X p (t) − A ∗  C ∗ X p (t) − X (t), (22)

where, ‘t’ is the number of current iterations, ‘Xp’ is the position of the prey, ‘X’ is the location of the grey wolves,
and ‘A’ and ‘C’ are the coefficients for the vectors. The coefficients ‘A’ and ‘C’ are calculated using Eqs. (23) and
(24).
−
→ −
a × (2−
A =→ →
r 1 − 1), (23)

−
→
C =2×−
→
r 2, (24)
where, the number of ‘a’ is linearly decreasing from 2 to 0 as the number of iterations decreases. ­r1 and ­r2 represent
uniformly selected random numbers between [0, 1]. In the hunting process of grey wolves, alpha is considered
the optimal applicant for the solution, while beta and delta are expected to be knowledgeable about the prey’s
possible position. Therefore, the three best solutions that are achieved are kept until a certain iteration which
forces others (e.g., omega) to modify their positions in the decision space consistent with the best place. The
position is updated as follows:
−
→ −
→ −
→
−
→ X1+ X2+ X3
X (t + 1) = , (25)
3
where ­X1, ­X2, ­X3 are calculated as follows:
−
→ −
→ −
→ −
→
X1 = Xα − A1 × Dα
−
→ −
→ −
→ −
→
X2 = Xβ − A2 × Dβ (26)
−
→ −
→ −
→ −
→
X 3 = X δ − A 3 × D δ.
The values Xα , Xβ , and Xδ represent the best three wolves in each iteration, respectively. Where, A1, A2, and
A3 are calculated as in Eq. (26). Dα , Dβ , Dδ are calculated as in Eq. (27).

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

−
→ −→ −
→ −
→
 
Dα = C1 × Xα − X
−
→ −→ −
→ −
→
 
Dβ = C2 × Xβ − X (27)
−
→ −→ −
→ −
→
 
D δ =  C 3 × X δ − X ,

where ­C1, ­C2, ­C3 are calculated based on Eqs. (24) and (27). Grey wolves finish their hunting by attacking the
prey. To achieve this, they must get close enough to the prey. When Eq. (23) is examined, ‘A’ takes values that
vary from [− 2a, 2a], while ‘A’ takes decreasing values from 2 to 0. When |A| value is greater than or equal to 1,
the existing hunts are abandoned to find better solutions. Assuming that the prey gets close enough for values
less than 1, the grey wolves are forced to attack the prey. This approach prevents the wolves from getting stuck on
the local minimum. When the GWO algorithm reaches the desired number of iterations, the search is completed.

Particle swarm optimization. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a population-based algorithm that was
developed by R. Eberhart and J. Kennedy in 1­ 99528. It was inspired by the movement of organisms such as bird
flocking and fish schooling. The randomly generated population is called a swarm and it consist of individuals
named particles. Every particle in the swarm indicates a probable explanation of the optimization problem.
Each particle moves with a random velocity through a D-dimensional search ­space29,30. The particle ­(Xi) is the
position representation of each individual with N-dimensional search space which is described using Eq. (28).
Xi = (Xi1 Xi2 Xi3 . . . XiN ). (28)
(t+1)
Then each particle moves to become a new particle position ( Xi ) by updating the velocity through a new
(t+1)
speed variable (Vi ) with the following equation:
(t+1) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t)
Vi = w.Vi + c1 r1 (pbest − Xi ) + c2 r2 (gbest − Xi ), (29)

(t+1) (t) (t+1)

Xi = Xi + V i , (30)
where ­C1and ­C2 are individual and group acceleration coefficients respectively, r­ 1 and ­r2 are random values
between [0–1].w(t) is the weight value of the inertia at iteration t, w(t) is calculated using Eq. (31) 31.
 
wmax − wmin
w(t) = wmax − × t. (31)
max .iter

Hybrid GWO and PSO. In Ref.32, the hybrid GWO-PSO algorithm was presented for improving the perfor-
mance of convergence. Authors have used the GWO-PSO to combine the capacity of both methods and to
explore PSO with the ability to exploit GWO in order to reach their optimized ­strengths33. Instead of utilizing
the traditional mathematical equations, the first three agents’ positions in the search space are updated in the
proposed hybrid GWO-PSO, and the grey wolf ’s exploitation and exploration were governed by inertia constant.
The overall flowchart for the optimal placement and sizing of the PV-DGs is shown in Fig. 4.

Result and discussion

The analysis and simulation was performed using MATLAB 2021a with an Intel(R) Core (TM) i5-4300U CPU
@ 1.90 GHz, 8 GB RAM on a personal computer. By testing different probability of weighting factors as shown
in Table 1, we selected w
­ 1 = 0.5, ­w2 = 0.4, and ­w3 = 0.1 which give a minimum objective value.
The input parameters of the different optimization algorithms and boundary condition of the decision vari-
ables are presented in Table 2.
In the existing or base case, the total active and reactive load demands are 15.793 MW and 9.792 MVAr
respectively. The real power loss of the system is 888.9041 KW, whereas its reactive power loss is 531.4082 kVar
at the base case. The minimum voltage is 0.906 p.u at bus number 125 which is below the limit of 0.95pu and
also seventy-nine buses are below the required voltage level (57.66%). Multiple PV-DG units are integrated into
the system to analyze the performance of the feeder.
The system inputs data like base MVA = 100 and base kV = 15 which are used to change the base value into a
per-unit value. Four cases are used for the integration of PV-DG units which are from one up to 4-DG in number
by applying five optimization algorithms, namely, PSO, GWO, SCA, WOA, and hybrid GWO-PSO. The four
cases are: Case 1: One DG (1-DG) integration; Case 2: Two DG (2-DG) integration; Case 3: Three DG (3-DG)
integration; Case 4: Four DG (4-DG) integration.
For case 1, the overall performance measurement is shown in Fig. 5 and Table 3.
Figure 6 shows the result obtained when integrating 2-DG with different algorithms. It was observed that each
algorithm has a different number of iterations to reach its optimal solution, whereas GWO and WOA converge
rapidly with less than 15 iterations. Also, PSO and GWO-PSO converge after 30 iterations and PSO achieves a
minimum multi-objective function value. The overall performance is illustrated in Table 4.
As shown in Fig. 7, all algorithms converged with few iterations (less than ten) and also the PSO, WOA, SCA
and GWO based optimization gives minimum and the same objective function values. While the hybrid GWO-
PSO gives higher values. All algorithms except the hybrid GWO-PSO give bus 17 and 9475 kW as the optimal
location and size of the DGs. The percentage real and reactive power loss reduction are 48.5814 and 48.874

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  Flowchart of the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO for optimal sizing and location of DG.

w1 w2 w3 Best objective function value

0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0181
0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0145
0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0107
0.5 0.4 0.1 0.007
0.6 0.1 0.3 0.0146
0.6 0.2 0.2 0.011
0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0073
0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0111
0.7 0.2 0.1 0.00734
0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0075

Table 1.  Effect of weights on the fitness value.

respectively. Also, the minimum voltage improved from 0.906 p.u to 0.95893 p.u, while the hybrid GWO-PSO
achieves bus 16 and 9475 kW as optimal location and size which gives a 46.5722% real and 46.9556% reactive
power loss reduction as well as a minimum voltage of 0.95884 p.u.
The voltage profile for 2-DG integration with different algorithms is shown in Fig. 6. The results show that
bus 1–7 and bus 27–73 have the same voltage profile for different algorithms. However, other buses have different

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Number of particles (No. P) for PSO 30

Number of search agents for GWO, SCA, and WOA 30
Maximum iteration 50
Parameters of PSO algorithms wmin 0.4
Inertia weight
wmax 0.9
Personal best value (c1) 2
Neighborhood best value (c2) 2
Decision variables of objective function Bus number (location) Sizing of DG (MW)
Lower bound (Lb) 2 0
Boundary
Upper bound (Ub) 137 9.476

Table 2.  Parameters of the optimization algorithm and boundary of decision variables of the objective
function.

10-3
Objective Function value (MOF)

With PSO
9.5 With GWO
With PSOGWO
With SCA
9 10-3 With WOA
7.25
8.5 7.2
7.15
8 7.1

6 8 10 12 14
7.5

7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Iteration Number

Figure 5.  Convergence curve for 1-DG integration with different algorithms.

Location (size Max. voltage % P loss % Q loss

Methods in KW) PLoss (kW) QLoss (kVar) Vmin (p.u.) deviation (%) reduction reduction MOF
PSO 17 (9475) 455.9757 271.1165 0.95893 4.1072 48.5914 48.874 0.00723
GWO 17 (9475) 455.9757 271.1165 0.95893 4.1072 48.5914 48.874 0.00723
GWO-PSO 116 (9475) 473.8856 281.2894 0.95884 4.1163 46.5722 46.9556 0.00722
SCA 17 (9475) 455.9757 271.1165 0.95893 4.1072 48.5914 48.874 0.00723
WOA 17 (9475) 455.9757 271.1165 0.95893 4.1072 48.5914 48.874 0.00723

Table 3.  Performance measurement after 1-DG integration with different algorithms.

Objective Function value (MOF)

With PSO
0.014
With GWO
0.013 With PSOGWO
With SCA
0.012 With WOA
10-3
0.011 7.4

7.2
0.01
7
0.009 6.8
25 30 35 40
0.008

0.007
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Iteration Number

Figure 6.  Convergence curve for 2-DG integration with different algorithms.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Location (size Max. voltage % P loss % Q loss

Methods in kW) PLoss (kW) QLoss (kVar) Vmin (p.u.) deviation (%) reduction reduction MOF
14 (4738)
PSO 401.735 240.3636 0.95921 4.079 54.7067 54.6732 0.006878
19 (4738)
82 (4738)
GWO 442.295 264.6681 0.9705 2.95 50.1339 50.09 0.007275
137 (4738)
132 (4738)
GWO-PSO 411.512 246.2272 0.95916 4.0841 53.6044 53.5675 0.00692
14 (4738)
106 (4738)
SCA 418.084 250.1675 0.95913 4.0875 52.8635 52.8244 0.007156
19 (4738)
129 (4533)
WOA 463.597 275.4597 0.9581 4.19 47.732 48.0549 0.00732
122 (4738)

Table 4.  Performance measurement after 2-DG integration with different algorithms.

1.02

0.98
Voltgae (P.u.)

0.96

0.94 Base case

GWO
PSO
0.92 PSOGWO
SCA
WOA
0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Bus Number

Figure 7.  Voltage profile of base case and 2-DG integration with different algorithms.

voltage profiles. The maximum voltage is achieved at bus 82 with a value of 1.00444 p.u using the GWO algorithm,
while the minimum voltage is achieved at bus 91 with a value of 0.9581 p.u using WOA. Algorithm like PSO and
GWO-PSO have nearly the same voltage profile except bus 20–26 and bus 132 to last bus.
The convergence characteristics of the different optimization algorithms for the optimal integration of multi-
ple (three) PV-based DG units in the Dilla one distribution system is shown in Fig. 8. Figure 8 shows the results
obtained when the different optimization algorithms are applied to the test system. It was observed that each
algorithm has a different number of iterations to reach the optimal solution, whereas the GWO, SCA, and hybrid
GWO-PSO converge rapidly with less than 18 iterations. In fact, the hybrid GWO-PSO algorithm converges
faster compared to the other algorithms, taking less than seven iterations, and having the least value of MOF.
Also, it was observed that the PSO and hybrid GWO-PSO algorithms converge with the same value of objective
function (0.005388) using the Dilla one feeder test system considered in this paper. The optimization results of
three PV-DGs using different optimization algorithms for the Dilla one feeder are tabulated in Table 5.
Objective Function value (MOF)

0.018 With PSO

0.016 With
With
GWO
PSOGWO
0.014 With SCA
With WOA 10
-3
0.012 6.2
6
0.01 5.8
5.6
5.4
0.008
30 35 40 45 50

0.006

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Iteration Number

Figure 8.  Convergence curve for 3-DG integration with different algorithms.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Location (size Max. voltage % P loss % Q loss

Methods in KW) PLoss (kW) QLoss (kVar) Vmin (p.u.) deviation (%) reduction reduction MOF
22 (3156)
PSO 86 (3156) 365.421 218.0724 0.97827 2.1734 58.8009 58.8768 0.00539
123 (3156)
85 (2880)
GWO 137 (3156) 390.914 233.0712 0.97814 2.1856 55.9267 56.0484 0.0059
125 (3156)
86 (3156)
GWO-PSO 119 (3156) 371.4827 221.5613 0.97826 2.1737 58.1175 58.2189 0.00536
133 (3156)
80 (3156)
SCA 127 (3156) 344.9114 205.9623 0.97177 2.8233 61.1133 61.1605 0.00619
19 (3156)
WOA 137 (3156) 385.117 229.741 0.97814 2.1856 56.5803 56.6764 0.00575

Table 5.  Performance measurement after 3-DG integration with different algorithms.

Figure 9 shows the voltage profiles before and after the integration of 3-DG units into the Dilla one feeder
test system. The voltage profiles of bus numbers 1–6 and 27–66 are quite similar for all algorithms. On the other
hand, for the rest of buses, there are noticeable variations in the voltage profiles.
Figure 10 shows the boxplot of MOF while using different algorithms for the Dilla one feeder by consider-
ing the same parameters such as the number of iterations and population size, and the outcomes of different
algorithms after 20 runs. The results show that the hybrid GWO-PSO gives the best result of MOF which gives
the minimum median value.

1
0.99
0.98
0.97 Base case
0.96 GWO
Voltgae

PSO
0.95 PSOGWO
SCA
0.94 WOA
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Bus Number

Figure 9.  Voltage profile of base case and 2-DG integration with different algorithms.

-3
10
13
12
Objective function (MOF)

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
GWO PSO PSOGWO SCA WOA

Figure 10.  Boxplot of MOF using different algorithms.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

The voltage profile is different for different algorithms except for bus 27–66 which is nearly the same as shown
in Fig. 11. The minimum voltage is 0.9574p.u at bus 91 and the maximum voltage is 1.00749 p.u at bus 137 for
GWO in both cases. As shown in Fig. 12, the WOA converges rapidly while it has the highest MOF value, except
for the GWO algorithm, while the PSO has best (minimum) MOF value. Table 6 presents the performance
measurement after 4-DGs were integrated with different algorithms.
The convergence curve for integration of 4-DG with different algorithms is shown in Fig. 13. From Fig. 14, it
is observed that 3-DG integration has high percentage of active and reactive power loss reduction and minimum
voltage deviation index.
Figure 14 shows that GWO gives the best MVDI (%). This indicates that GWO is suitable for voltage improve-
ment and also PSO gives the best APLR (%) and RPLR (%). This indicates that PSO is suitable for power loss
reduction. However, PSO-GWO gives the best result for both voltage improvement and loss reduction.
The proposed hybrid algorithm is not computationally complex as it achieved a runtime (processing time) of
2.78 s, while 2.89 s, 2.9 s, 3.12 s, and 3.2 s was achieved using PSO, GWO, SCA, and WOA, respectively.

Conclusion and recommendation for future work

Conclusion. This paper presented the integration of Multiple PV-DGs to minimize the multi-objective func-
tion for active and reactive power loss reduction and voltage profile improvement in an Ethiopian distribution
system in Dilla city (Dilla distribution system). The results of the study show that the percentage real and reactive
power loss reduction is high at three DG (case-3) almost for all algorithms and less maximum voltage deviation
and minimum. In addition, the superiority of the proposed hybrid GWO-PSO algorithm was shown compared
to the other four algorithms (Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), Particle
swarm optimization (PSO), and sine cosine algorithm (SCA)) in terms of achieving the best result of multi-
objective value (MOF). By integrating three DG using the proposed method, 58.1175% active and 58.2189%
reactive power loss was reduced, moreover the voltage profile is within permissible limits where the maximum
voltage deviation is 2.1739%.

Recommendation for future work. In the future, authors hope to use other meta-heuristic approaches
for the Optimal Placement and Sizing of Multiple PV-DG Units installing battery energy storage systems (BESSs).

Figure 11.  Branch power loss considering different algorithms.

1.02

1
Voltgae (P.u.)

0.98

0.96

0.94 Base case

GWO
PSO
0.92 PSOGWO
SCA
WOA
0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Bus Number

Figure 12.  Voltage profile of base case and 4-DG integration with different algorithms.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Location (size Max. voltage % P loss % Q loss

Methods in kW) PLoss (kW) QLoss (kVar) Vmin (p.u.) deviation (%) reduction reduction MOF
87 (2569)
23 (2569)
PSO 377.2116 224.8239 0.97857 2.1425 57.4716 57.6036 0.00442
128 (2569)
118 (2562)
128 (2336)
137 (2569)
GWO 478.4918 285.2436 0.95741 4.2595 46.0528 46.2099 0.00770
115 (1638)
134 (2569)
119 (2569)
137 (2569)
GWO-PSO 387.5865 230.7713 0.97857 2.1428 56.3019 56.4821 0.00451
86 (2569)
122 (2569)
21 (2569)
11 (2569)
SCA 353.0925 211.1298 0.97859 2.141 60.1909 60.186 0.00496
83 (2569)
22 (2569)
137 (2293)
120 (2569)
WOA 379.856 226.437 0.97847 2.1532 57.1735 57.2994 0.00462
87 (2569)
129 (2569)

Table 6.  Performance measurement after the integration of 4-DGs with different algorithms.
Objective Function value (MOF)

0.02 With PSO

With GWO
With PSOGWO
0.015 10-3 With SCA
5 With WOA

4.5
0.01
4
20 25 30 35 40 45

0.005

0 10 20 30 40 50
Iteration Number

Figure 13.  Convergence curve for 4-DG integration with different algorithms.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

4.5

4
1DG
2DG

MVDI(%)
3.5 3DG
4DG

2.5

2
PSO GWO PSOGWO SCA WOA
(a)

70

60

50
APLR(%)

40
1DG
30 2DG
3DG
4DG
20

10

0
PSO GWO PSOGWO SCA WOA
(b)

62 1DG
2DG
60 3DG
4DG
58
RPLR(%)

56
54
52
50
48
46
PSO GWO PSOGWO SCA WOA
(c)

Figure 14.  Comparison of different DGs and algorithms (a) for MVDI (%), (b) APLR (%), (c) RPLR (%).
MVDI Maximum voltage deviation index, APLR active power loss reduction, RPLR reactive power loss
reduction.

Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are avail-
able from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Received: 23 December 2022; Accepted: 24 April 2023

References
1. Yuvaraj, T. & Ravi, K. Multi-objective simultaneous DG and DSTATCOM allocation in radial distribution networks using cuckoo
searching algorithm. Alexandria Eng. J. 57(4), 2729–2742. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aej.​2018.​01.​001 (2018).
2. Agajie, T. F., Gebru, F. M., Salau, A. O. & Aeggegn, D. B. Investigation of distributed generation penetration limits in distribution
networks using multi-objective particle swarm optimization technique. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. https://d ​ oi.o
​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 42835-0​ 23-​
01457-4 (2023).
3. Enguay, L. W. Monitoring and assessing power quality problems in Ethiopia. Energy and Economic Growth. https://​www.​energ​
yecon​omicg​rowth.​org/​node/​235.
4. Elsayed, A. M., Hegab, M. M., Farrag, S. M. Performance enhancement of distribution systems using distributed generators and
capacitor banks at medium and low voltage networks. In 2018 20th International Middle East Power Systems Conference, MEPCON
2018—Proceedings, 39–46 (2019).
5. Gudadappanavar, S. S. & Mahapatra, S. Metaheuristic nature-based algorithm for optimal reactive power planning. Int. J. Syst.
Assur. Eng. Manag. 13, 1453–1466. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13198-​021-​01489-x (2022).
6. Sabpayakom, N. & Sirisumrannukul, S. Power losses reduction and reliability improvement in distribution system with very small
power producers. Energy Proc. 100, 388–395 (2016).
7. Sarfaraz, A. B. & Singh, S. Optimal allocation and sizing of distributed generation for power loss reduction. IET Conf. Publ.
2016(CP700), 15–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1049/​cp.​2016.​1116 (2016).

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

8. Lin, K. M., Swe, P. L., Oo, K. Z. Combination of analytical method and heuristic technique for optimal DG allocation in practical
distribution network: Case study in Myingyan distribution … Academia. Edu. 124–129 (2018).
9. Sirjani, R., Rezaee Jordehi, A. Optimal placement and sizing of distribution static compensator (D-STATCOM) in electric distribu-
tion networks: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 688–694 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2017.​04.​035.
10. Agajie, T. F., Salau, A. O., Hailu, E. A., Sood, M., Jain, S. Optimal sizing and siting of distributed generators for minimization of
power losses and voltage deviation. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Signal Processing, Computing and Control,
vol. 2019-Octob, 292–297. (2019) https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ISPCC​48220.​2019.​89884​01.
11. Prasetyo, T., Sarjiya, Putranto, L. M. Optimal sizing and siting of PV-based distributed generation for losses minimization of dis-
tribution using flower pollination algorithm. In 2019 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology,
ICOIACT 2019, 779–783 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICOIA​CT467​04.​2019.​89384​24.
12. Akbar, M. I. et al. A novel hybrid optimization-based algorithm for the single and multi-objective achievement with optimal DG
allocations in distribution networks. IEEE Access 10, 25669–25687 (2022).
13. Kumar, G. S., Kumar, S. S. & Kumar, S. V. J. Reconfiguration of radial distribution system for loss reduction and reliability enhance-
ment with DG placement. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 13(23), 16356–16362 (2018).
14. Rind, M., Rathi, M., Hashmani, A. & Lashari, A. Optimal placement and sizing of DG in radial distribution system using PSO
technique. Sindh Univ. Res. J. –Sci. Ser. 51(04), 653–660 (2019).
15. Zhang, S., Liu, Y. M., Gao, F. & Tian, B. Optimal placement and sizing of distributed generation in smart distribution system. Appl.
Mech. Mater. 513, 513–517 (2014).
16. Mhamdi, B., Teguar, M. & Tahar, B. Optimal DG unit placement and sizing in radial distribution network for power loss minimiza-
tion and voltage stability enhancement. Period. Polytech. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 64(2), 157–169 (2020).
17. Hantash, N., Khatib, T., Khammash, M. An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for optimal allocation of distributed
generation units in radial power systems. Appl. Comput. Intell. Soft Comput. (2020).
18. Kc, B., Alkhwaildi, H. Multi-objective TLBO and GWO-based optimization for placement of renewable energy resources in
distribution system. Comput. Res. Prog. Appl. Sci. Eng. (2021).
19. Gupta, S., Rawat, M. S. & Gupta, T. N. A comparison of heuristic optimization techniques for optimal placement and sizing of
DGs in distribution network. IEEE Delhi Sect. Conf. (DELCON) 2022, 1–6 (2022).
20. Selim, A., Kamel, S., Mohamed, A. A. & Elattar, E. E. Optimal allocation of multiple types of distributed generations in radial
distribution systems using a hybrid technique. Sustainability 13(12), 6644 (2021).
21. Nweke, J. N., Salau, A. O. & Eya, C. U. Headroom-based optimization for placement of distributed generation in a distribution
substation. Eng. Rev. 42(1), 1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​30765/​er.​1748 (2022).
22. Cortes-Carmona, M., Vega, J., Cortes-Olivares, M. Power flow algorithm for analysis of distribution networks including distributed
generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition—Latin America, T and
D-LA 2018, 1–5 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TDC-​LA.​2018.​85116​95.
23. Thangaraj, Y. & Kuppan, R. Multi-objective simultaneous placement of DG and DSTATCOM using novel lightning search algo-
rithm. J. Appl. Res. Technol. 15(5), 477–491 (2017).
24. Mishra, V. L., Madhav, M. K. & Bajpai, R. S. a Comparative analysis of distribution system load flow for 33-Bus system. Int. J. Electr.
Electron. Eng. 8(01), 1011–1021 (2016).
25. Hosseini-Hemati, S., Sheisi, G. H. & Karimi, S. Allocation-based optimal reactive power dispatch considering polynomial load
model using improved grey wolf optimizer. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Electr. Eng. 45(3), 921–944 (2021).
26. Hung, D. Q., Mithulananthan, N. & Bansal, R. C. Analytical expressions for DG allocation in primary distribution networks. IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 25(3), 814–820. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TEC.​2010.​20444​14 (2010).
27. Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M. & Lewis, A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 69, 46–61 (2014).
28. Clerc, M. Particle swarm optimization. Part. Swarm Optim. 4, 1942–1948 (2010).
29. Devi, S., Geethanjali, M. Placement and sizing of D-STATCOM using particle swarm optimization. In Lecture Notes in Electrical
Engineering, vol. 326, 941–951 (Springer, 2015).
30. Salau, A. O., Gebru, Y. & Bitew, D. A. Optimal network reconfiguration for power loss minimization and voltage profile enhance-
ment in distribution systems. Heliyon 6(6), 1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​heliy​on.​2020.​e04233 (2020).
31. Paleba, M. H. B., Putranto, L. M., Hadi, S. P. Optimal placement and sizing distributed wind generation using particle swarm
optimization in distribution system. In ICITEE 2020—Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Technology
and Electrical Engineering, 239–244. (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICITE​E49829.​2020.​92716​71.
32. Singh, N., Singh, S. B. Hybrid algorithm of particle swarm optimization and grey wolf optimizer for improving convergence
performance. J. Appl. Math. 2017, 1–15 (2017).
33. Ansari, M. M. et al. Planning for distribution system with grey wolf optimization method. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 15, 1485–1499.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42835-​020-​00419-4 (2020).
34. Shiva, C. K. et al. Fuzzy-based shunt VAR source placement and sizing by oppositional crow search algorithm. J. Control Autom.
Electr. Syst. 33, 1576–1591. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40313-​022-​00903-4 (2022).

Author contributions
A.B.A.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing-Original draft preparationA.O.S.: Data
curation, Methodology, Writing-Reviewing, Editing and Validation, Supervision.B.K.: Visualization, Investiga-
tion, Supervision.J.N.E.: Investigation, Writing-Reviewing, Editing.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.O.S.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 16

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2023

Scientific Reports | (2023) 13:6903 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34057-3 17

Vol.:(0123456789)