www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Osprey optimization algorithm for

distributed generation integration
in a radial distribution system for
power loss reduction
P. Rajakumar1, P. M. Balasubramaniam2, Arunkumar Munimathan3, Mamdooh Alwetaishi4,
Mohammad Imtiyaz Gulbarga5 & Chinnaiyan Senthilpari6
Many optimization algorithms were proposed in the past and optimized the distributed generation
(DG) in the radial power distribution networks. However, most of the algorithms suffer from poor
convergence and local optima stagnation issues due to the complicatedness of the problem. Several
new algorithms and enhanced algorithms are recently developed to resolve numerous engineering
problems. In this study, an optimization method is developed using the Osprey optimization algorithm
(OOA) to determine the best possible solution for the complex DG placement problem. The proposed
OOA method optimizes the appropriate size and location for a Type I and III DG to reduce the RDS’s
real power losses (RPL). The adequacy of the proposed technique is investigated on the IEEE 33-bus
and 118-bus radial PDNs. Furthermore, a real-time Malaysian 54-bus radial PDN is considered to
verify the adaptability of the proposed approach. The proposed technique optimized DG placement
has minimized the RPL in the IEEE 33-bus radial PDN by 52.47% (Type-I) and 71.95% (Type-III) and
likewise, in the Malaysian 54-bus radial PDN the power losses are cut down by 72.56% (Type-I) and
94.88% (Type-III). Moreover, the proposed OOA technique provided better results than the popular and
recent optimization techniques cited in literature.

Keywords Algorithms, Distributed generation, Power loss, Optimization, Radial distribution

Worldwide power consumption is anticipated to intensify at a rate of 1.6 percent each year1. Power distribution
networks (PDNs) have always had to adjust according to the power demand variation. This results in more
power losses and voltage drops in PDN. Higher power losses and voltage deviations indirectly affect the
economic operation of power networks. Therefore, for a safer, more secure and economical operation of PDN,
it is important to decrease the amount of power losses (PL) and limit the bus voltage deviation (VD) within the
recommended level. Distributed generation (DG) deployment is an effective solution to minimize PL and VD in
PDN. Predominantly, DG uses the solar radiation and wind energy as alternative sources to generate electricity
locally. Moreover, DG placement has attracted the researchers more due to their inherent ability to reduce power
losses, minimize voltage deviation and enhance stability. In addition, DGs can serve as a backup generation
during power outages to ensure reliability. However, DG positioning (site and size) in the PDN is critical to
obtain the optimized results. Erroneous allocation of DGs can lead to several undesirable results including more
voltage dip, higher power losses, higher capital and operating costs, higher fault currents, etc. Therefore, DG
location and size should be effectively optimized in the PDN to avoid undesirable results.
Typically, DG is categorized into conventional and non-conventional types based on the nature of primary
resource used for the power generation. The conventional DGs use fossil fuels including combustion turbines,
fuel cells and combustion engines. The non-conventional DGs use renewable energy resources including solar,
wind, and geothermal for power generation. The type of DG selection depends on technical, economic and

1Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and

Technology, Chennai, India. 2Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Hindusthan Institute of
Technology, Coimbatore, India. 3Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Hindusthan College of Engineering
and Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India. 4Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif
University, 21944 Taif, Saudi Arabia. 5Faculty of Engineering and Informatics, Department of Computer Science
& Engineering, Ala-Too International University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. 6Faculty of Engineering (FOE), Multimedia
University, Persiaran Multimedia Cyberjaya, 63100 Selangor, Malaysia. email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 1

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

ecological factors. Usually, non-conventional energy DGs are preferred owing to their inherent availability and
zero carbon emission characteristics.
Optimization plays a crucial role in wide areas for improving the performance, efficiency and effective
resource utilization2,3. The researchers have applied several optimization techniques in the past to optimize
DGs in the RDS. An analytical4 and iterative5 methodologies were proposed for optimizing DG capacity and
position to curtail the net PL of a radial distribution system (RDS). Metaheuristic algorithms such as genetic
algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithms were applied in6 to optimally deploy the
solar photovoltaic (PV) system and wind turbine (WT) in IEEE 33-bus RDS to cut down the total real PL and
enhance the voltage profile (VP). The grey wolf optimization (GWO) technique was implemented to optimize
the site and rating of a DG to decrease the line PL of RDS7. The proposed GWO technique optimized the
different types of DGs in the various IEEE RDSs with 16, 30, 57 and 118 no. of buses. The appropriate sites
and sizes for different renewable DGs were computed using a modified Aquila optimizer (MAO) algorithm to
minimize RPL and enhance the voltage profiles of RDS8. The effectiveness of the MAO method was examined
on the standard 33-bus IEEE radial PDN. An optimization technique using an improved wild horse optimization
(IWHO) algorithm was proposed and executed in9 to optimize DG in the different IEEE RDSs including 33, 69
and 119 no. of buses. The proposed technique optimized the site and size for DG with real power loss (RPL)
minimization as an objective. A rider optimization algorithm (ROA) applied10 for appropriate computation of
optimal sites and sizes for various renewable energy DG systems including PV, WT and biomass. The suggested
ROA methodology optimized the DG to cut down the RPL of RDS. A novel technique using a shark optimization
algorithm (SOA) was proposed in11 to optimize the DG to cut down the total RPL and enrich the VP and voltage
stability (VS) of RDS. An optimization approach was proposed using an enhanced symbiotic organisms search
(SOS) algorithm in12 to optimally incorporate the DGs of different power factors. The enhanced SOS algorithm
optimized the DGs in different IEEE RDSs with 33, 69 and 118-buses to reduce RPL, improve VP and enhance
VS. A single and multiple objectives DG placement problems were solved using a chaotic sine cosine algorithm
(CSCA)13. The CSCA approach was implemented to optimize the sites and sizes for multiple DG units in the
33-bus and 69-bus standard IEEE RDSs. A water cycle algorithm (WCA) was applied14 to optimize multiple
DGs to cut down RPL, operating cost and carbon emission. An optimization technique using GWO algorithm
was introduced15 to allocate type-I and II DGs in RDS. An optimization method using metaheuristic algorithms
such as a backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSOA)16 and ant lion optimizer (ALO)17 algorithm
was proposed to allocate DG in the different RDSs. A modified PSO (MPSO) algorithm was developed and
executed18 to optimize the site and size for DG to curtail the RPL in RDS. The best position and size for DG were
computed using an enhanced coyote optimization algorithm (ECOA)19, GA20, PSO and differential evolution
(DE) algorithms21.

Motivation
The above literature discussion presented the application of different metaheuristic algorithms to solve DG
placement problems in radial distribution power networks. However, several algorithms have been reported
for poor convergence and inaccuracy results in the context of finding the best solution for a complex DG
placement problem. GA fails to discover the optimal solution to a complex optimization problem and ends up
prematurely converging in a local optima solution. Likewise, the GWO algorithm prematurely converges to a
local optima solution in the early stages of the optimization process due to its inaccuracy. Similarly, BSOA and
ALO algorithms have suffered from slow convergence and local optimal stagnation problems. Thus, in the hope
of finding the best solution (optimal) at a better convergence rate, a new technique using Osprey optimizer
algorithm (OOA) is introduced in this study to optimize DG in the RDS. The OOA is developed inspiring
the intelligence of Osprey’s hunting strategy. The OOA possess a balanced exploration and exploitation feature
that makes it to achieve global optimal solution22. The literature22 also reported that application of OOA has
produced superior solutions to 22 real-world optimization problems. This motivates the researchers of this work
to implement OOA for solving the optimal DG placement and sizing problem.

Contribution
The contributions of the proposed optimization study are listed below.

• An optimization methodology using a novel osprey optimization algorithm (OOA) is implemented to opti-
mize the appropriate site and capacity of two different types of DG units.
• Versatility of the OOA technique is examined on the small IEEE 33-bus RDS and a large 118-bus RDS for
single and multiple DG optimizations.
• Viability of the proposed approach is investigated on a real-time 54-bus Malaysian RDS.
• Efficacy of the OOA is evaluated by relating its simulation results with different optimization algorithms cited
in the literature.

The remaining parts of the proposed study are presented in different sections. Section “Motivation” details
about problem formation including objective function framework, constraints and DG modelling. Section
“Contribution” describes the mathematical framework of OOA. Section “Problem formation” summarizes the
optimized simulation outcome of OOA for DG placement in different RDSs. Section “Constraints” concludes
the summary of the research outcomes and future work.

Problem formation
Consider a RDS with buses ‘i’ and ‘i + 1’ (Fig. 1) interconnected via a distribution line with resistance ‘Ri’ and
reactance ‘Xi’.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 1. Two bus RDS.

The RPL along the distribution line is computed using (1).

( )
Pi2 + Q2i
RP L = Ri ∗ (1)
|Vi |2

For a RDS with ‘n’ buses, the total RPL can be computed using (2).

∑
n−1 ( )
Pi2 + Q2i
RP LT = Ri ∗ (2)
i=1
|Vi |2

where, P is a real power demand, PL is a real power flow, Q is a reactive power demand, QL is a reactive power
flow and Vi is a bus voltage.
The proposed OOA technique optimizes the suitable site and size of DG for an objective of minimizing the
net RPL of RDS. So, the mathematical expression of the proposed objective function (F) is given in (3).
( )
RP LT (DG)
F = min (3)
RP LT (noDG)

where, RPLT(DG) is a total RPL after the DG integration and RPLT(no DG) is the total power loss before the DG
allocation.

Constraints
The appropriate location and size for DG is optimized with reference to several constraints including thermal
limit, real and reactive power injection limits, power balance constraint and voltage constraint.

Thermal constraint
The branch current of RDS must be restricted below the rated limit as given (4).
Ii ≤ Iimax (4)

DG active power (PDG) injection constraint

The capacity of real power injection by DG should not exceed substation capacity23.
min max
PDG ≤ PDG ≤ PDG (5)

DG reactive power (QDG) injection constraint

The capacity of reactive power injection by DG should not exceed substation capacity23.

Qmin max
DG ≤ QDG ≤ QDG (6)

Power balance constraint

The incoming power of DN must be sum of power demand and DG capacity24.

∑
n
∑
N

Pswing + PDG = Pi + Ploss,k (7)

i=1 k=1

∑
n
∑
N

Qswing + QDG = Qi + Qloss,k (8)

i=1 k=1

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 3

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Bus voltage constraint

The bus voltages must be kept with a specific limit as expressed in (9) for ensuring safe and stable operation24.
Vmin ≤ Vi ≤ Vmax (9)

where, ‘Ii’ is the branch current; PDG and QDG are the DG’s optimal real and reactive power rating, respectively;
PDGmin and QDGmin are the DG’s minimum real and reactive rating, respectively, PDGmax and QDGmax are the DG’s
maximum real and reactive power rating, respectively; Vmin and Vmax are the recommended minimum (0.95
p.u.) and maximum (1.05 p.u.) bus voltages, respectively; ‘N’ refers to the total number of branches.

DG modelling
The following subsection presents the mathematical modelling of type I and type III DG.

Type-I DG
In this work, the solar PV system is modelled as a type I DG. Type-I DG generates real power only. The output
power of a solar PV system is expressed in (10)25.
{ ( ) }
Pr × GGr , 0 ≤ G ≤ Gr
P= (10)
Pr, Gr ≤ G

where Pr is the rated real power, ‘G’ is the incident solar irradiance at the optimal site and ‘Gr’ is the rated solar
irradiance received on the earth’s surface. The reactive power injection of a solar PV system is neglected in the
modelling.

Type-III DG
Type-III DG can generate both as real and reactive powers. The wind turbine (WT) system is modelled as the
Type-III DG in this study. Equations (10) and (11) expresses the real (P) and reactive (Q) power output of a WT
system, respectively25.
{ }
( 0, ) 0 ≤ v ≤ vcin
P = Pr × v−vcin
vr −vcin
, vcin ≤ v ≤ vr (11)
Pr , vr ≤ v ≤ vcout

and

Q = P × tan(cos−1 (p.f.DG ))(12)

where Pr is the rated real power output of a WT system and vr and v is the rated and actual wind speed (WS) at
the optimal site. vcin and vcout are the cut-in and cut-out WS. The type I and III DG sizes are optimized in kW
and kVA rating, respectively.

Power flow
The power flow (PF) execution is an important process in an electrical power network to determine the power
losses and voltage profiles under different operating conditions. The application of PF methods using Gauss–
Seidel (GS) and Newton–Raphson (NR) algorithms in RDS becomes ineffective because of its unique radial
structure. Moreover, GS and NR algorithms converge slowly for RDS due to the high number of load buses.
Therefore, researchers recommend a backward/forward sweep (BFS) algorithm for an accurate and faster PF
solution11. BFS computes the line flows, power losses and bus voltages of RDS in two phases.

Phase 1: backward sweep

The line current is calculated in this phase. The computation is begins from far end branch and ends at head bus.

Phase 2: forward sweep

The bus voltages are computed in this phase of the algorithm. Contrast to previous phase, the calculation begins
from initial bus of the RDS and carried forward to far end bus. Flowchart for BFS algorithm is presented in Fig. 2.

Osprey optimizer algorithm: a solution technique

The osprey optimizer algorithm (OOA) is a metaheuristic algorithm developed inspiring the hunting behavior
of an osprey. The osprey is a piscivorous bird and is also called a fish hawk and sea hawk. A typical osprey weighs
between 0.9 and 2.1 kg with a length and wingspan ranging from 50 to 66 cm and 127 to 180 cm, respectively.
Almost 99% of the osprey’s food diet is fish26. Normally, osprey can hunt a fish weighing from 150 to 300 g and
25 to 35 cm in length. Nevertheless, it has the strength to catch 2 kg of fish. The osprey possesses excellent eye
vision and can identify a fish under the water reservoir while hovering at 10–40 m altitude over the water surface.
Once the osprey spots a fish, it catches the fish by dipping its feet and diving under the water27. Then it takes the
prey to an adjacent rock and starts eating it28.
The hunting characteristic of an osprey is modelled in the osprey optimizer algorithm to solve diversified
engineering problems. The following sub-sections present the mathematical modelling of OOA.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 2. Flowchart for BFS power flow assessment technique.

Mathematical modelling
This subsection elaborates on the mathematical background of OOA in three stages starting with initialization
followed by exploration and exploitation phases.

Initialization
OOA is a typical population-based metaheuristic algorithm that adopts randomness for finding the optimal
solutions to a numerous problems. All the ospreys contribute a solution to problem variables according to their
location. Hence, the candidate solution for the problem is modelled as a vector. The populations in OOA are
represented as a matrix as (13). The initial position for an osprey is randomized by (14).
 X   x ... x1,j ··· x1,m

1 1,1
 ...   ... .. .. . .. 
   . . .. . 
X=
 Xi

 =
 xi,1 ··· xi,j ··· xi,m 
 (13)
 ..   .. . .. .. .. 
. . .. . . .
XN N ×m
xN,1 ··· xN,j ··· xN,m N ×m

xi,j = Lbj + ri,j • (U bj − Lbj ) , where i = 1, 2, . . . , N j = 1, 2, . . . , m (14)

where X is a matrix that refers to the locations of osprey, Xi denotes a candidate solution (osprey), xi,j is a
problem variable, ri,j is a random variable between 0 and 1, N and m refers to the number of ospreys and problem
variables, respectively, Lbj and Ubj relates to a lower and upper limit of problem variable, respectively.
All ospreys contribute to a candidate solution for the intended objective function (OF). Hence, the fitness
values for the OF are expressed as a vector (F) as (15).

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

 F   F (X ) 
1 1

 ...   .. 
   . 
F =
 Fi

 =
 F (X i)

 (15)
 ..   .. 
. .
FN N ×1 F (XN ) N ×1

where Fi is the fitness value of an osprey.

The quality of the candidate solution for an optimization problem is assessed based on the fitness values of
OF. The fittest osprey is considered the best (elite) candidate solution. The osprey’s location is updated in each
iteration; hence, the elite solution should also be updated after each iteration.

Exploration
Ospreys possess clear eyesight where they can easily locate and hunt the prey (fish) under the water. This is
the first phase in the OOA where the population size is updated. The position of an osprey is updated after it
attacks the fish. This phase increases the exploration characteristics of OOA and helps to evade the local optima
stagnation problem.
For every osprey in the search space, the positions of other ospreys that have better fitness value for the OF
are characterized as fishes. Equation (16) expresses the set of fish locations (FPi) for every osprey in the search
space.
F Pi = { Xk | k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N } ∧ Fk < Fi } ∪ {Xbest }(16)

where Xbest refers to the best candidate solution (elite).

The osprey randomly picks a fish out of these sets and attacks it. Hence, the location of the osprey is updated
with its movement toward the fish as given in (17). If the osprey at the updated location has a better fitness value,
then replace the previous location of an osprey using (18).
1
i,j = xi,j + ri,j • (SFi,j − Ii,j • xi,j )(17a)
xP
{ 1
i,j ≤ U bj ;
1 Lbj ≤ xP
1
xP
i,j ,
1
xP
i,j = Lbj , xP
i,j < Lbj ; (17b)
1
i,j > U bj ;
U bj , xP
{
Xi = XiP 1 , FiP 1 < Fi ; (18)
Xi , else,

where, XiP1 and xi,jP1 refer to the new location of an osprey (first phase) and its jth dimension, respectively; FiP1
denotes to a fitness value for the objective function, SFi and SFi,j refer to the randomly picked fish for an osprey
in its jth dimension and Ii,j is a random number between {1,2}.

Exploitation
The osprey carries the hunted prey (fish) to an appropriate location to eat. This phase is simulated in the
exploitation process of OOA. The process of osprey carrying the fish to a suitable location causes a change in its
location in the search space. This accelerates the exploitation process of OOA and helps to converge at a faster
rate.
At first, a new random location for each population is determined using (19) and it is assigned as a “suitable
location to eat the prey (fish)”. The location of the osprey is updated as in (20) if the fitness value of the new
location is better than the previous location.

2 Lbj + r • (U bj − Lbj )
i,j = xi,j +
xP , f or i = 1, 2, . . . , N ; j = 1, 2, . . . , m; t = 1, 2, . . . , T.(19a)
t
{ 2
i,j ≤ U bj ;
2 Lbj ≤ xP
2
xP
i,j ,
P2
xP
i,j = Lbj , xi,j < Lbj ; (19b)
2
i,j > U bj ;
U bj , xP
{
Xi = XiP 2 , FiP 2 < Fi ; (20)
Xi , else,

where, XiP2 and xi,jP2 refer to the new location of osprey (second phase) and its jth dimension, respectively; FiP2
designates fitness value for the objective function; t and T refer to an iteration counter and a total number of
iterations, respectively.
The various stages of OOA are illustrated as a flowchart in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the implementation of OOA
for DG placement problem is described below.
Step 1: Acquire RDS line and bus data.
Step 2: Run power flow and find TLP and bus voltages.
Step 3: Initialize OOA parameters and set operational constraints of RDS.
Step 4: Set population = 50 and Iteration count = 100

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 3. Flowchart of OOA.

Step 5: Find the fitness value for the objective function (OF) without a DG accommodation.
Step 6: Randomize the population using (14) and find the fitness value for OF. Also, initialize it as a best
solution.
Step 7: Use the exploitation and exploration phases of OOA to optimize the site and size of DG unit,
respectively.
Step 8: Run the power flow and compute fitness value for the updated population. Replace the best solution
if it is fitter.
Step 9: Otherwise, move to Step 7 and repeat.
Step 10: Print the candidate optimized solution, if the algorithm’s stopping criteria is reached. Otherwise,
move to Step 6.
The OOA optimization technique solves the DG placement problem iteratively. The locations of ospreys
are updated in the first iteration. The best candidate solution (elite) is updated based on the fitness value of the
objective function. This process is repeated with the updated Ospreys locations until the maximum iteration is
reached. The elite solution is considered the optimal solution for the problem.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 7

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Voltage
constraint
No. of populations No. of iterations Base MVA Min Max
50 100 100 0.95p.u 1.05p.u

Table 1. Control parameter and constraints.

Fig. 4. IEEE 33-bus RDS: Single line diagram.

Simulation outcome and discussion

This section presents and discusses the simulation outcome for different types of RDS with single and multiple
numbers of DG accommodations. Simulation results were obtained using MATLAB (version R2020b) software.
The OOA was executed for 50 trials to compute a best solution to a DG placement problem. Simulation studies
were carried considering a constant power demand on the RDS and ignoring the uncertainties associated with
Type-I DG (solar energy) and Type-III DG (wind energy). The control parameter of OOA is presented in Table
1.

Test system I: IEEE 33-bus RDS

A simplified single-line model of a 33-bus RDS29 is presented in Fig. 4. The test system is built with 32 load buses
and 32 distribution lines (branches). The test system delivers 3720 kW and 2300 kVAr of active power (AP) and
reactive power, respectively. The substation operates at 12.66 kV.

Simulation results before DG deployment

The power flow result of a 33-bus radial distribution test system without DG accommodation is presented
in Table 2. Bus voltages are calculated in per unit (p.u) for a 12.66 kV base voltage. The PF study result in a
cumulative RPL of 210.98 kW and a Vmin of 0.9038p.u. Figure 5 presents the VP and RPL of a 33-bus test system
without DG deployment. 21 numbers of buses of the test system have recorded voltages below the minimum
recommended level (Vmin).

Simulation outcome after DG accommodation

Table 3 presents the simulation outcome for a 33-bus RDS after the DG’s accommodation. Figures 6 and 7
demonstrate the optimal solution obtained for Type I and III DG allocation in each trial of OOA. The potential
bus for DG placement is discovered by referring to the fitness value of the objective function. The bus at which
the DG placement gives a minimum fitness value is chosen as the optimal site. It is evident from Figs. 6 and 7 that
DG placement at the 6th bus yields the least fitness value compared to all other combinations. The OOA gives the
best solution for Type I and III DG in the 32nd and 27th runs of the simulation study.
The proposed OOA technique optimizes the Type I and III DG unit for a capacity of 2014.67 kW and 2436.12
kVA, respectively. The optimal deployment of DG significantly reduced the RPL of 33-bus RDS from 210.98 to
100.27 kW (for Type-I) and 59.16 kW (for Type-III). Figure 8 presents the RPL along the distribution lines of
a 33-bus test system after the DG inclusion. The optimal deployment of DG curtailed the RPL and enhanced
the VP of the test system. Figure 9a presents the VP of the 33-bus test system preceding and following the DG
placement. The Vmin of the radial power network is improved from 0.9038 to 0.9621 p.u and 0.971 p.u following
a Type I and III DG placement, respectively. It was obvious from the test result presented in Table 3 that the
OOA-optimized DG deployment substantially reduced the RPL. Furthermore, a significant enhancement in
VP is achieved with no buses registering a voltage below the minimum recommended value (0.95 p.u). Besides,
the OOA took only 8 iterations for Type-I DG and 11 iterations for Type-III DG placement to converge. The

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Voltage Profile RPL

Bus Without DG Type – I DG Type – III DG Branch Without DG Type – I DG Type – III DG
2 0.997 1.0085 1.0054 1 12.30 7.10 4.00
3 0.9829 1.0066 1.0053 2 52.08 21.48 14.18
4 0.9754 1.0036 1.0032 3 20.05 11.05 6.02
5 0.9679 0.9917 1.0016 4 18.85 7.85 4.45
6 0.9495 0.9901 1.001 5 38.57 14.57 8.46
7 0.9459 0.9885 0.9999 6 1.95 1.23 0.53
8 0.9323 0.9877 0.9977 7 11.87 6.87 2.63
9 0.926 0.9874 0.9955 8 4.27 2.27 0.77
10 0.9201 0.9847 0.994 9 3.62 1.62 0.22
11 0.9192 0.9805 0.9893 10 0.57 0.37 0.17
12 0.9177 0.9767 0.9872 11 0.90 0.60 0.20
13 0.9115 0.9719 0.9858 12 2.72 1.12 0.12
14 0.9092 0.9703 0.9828 13 0.74 0.44 0.14
15 0.9078 0.9687 0.9817 14 0.36 0.16 0.11
16 0.9064 0.9661 0.978 15 0.29 0.19 0.12
17 0.9044 0.9646 0.9732 16 0.26 0.16 0.12
18 0.9038 0.9621 0.971 17 0.05 0.04 0.03
19 0.9965 0.9607 0.9704 18 0.16 0.14 0.11
20 0.9929 1.00531 1.005 19 0.83 0.53 0.60
21 0.9922 1.0043 1.0036 20 0.10 0.10 0.10
22 0.9916 1.0006 1.0005 21 0.04 0.04 0.04
23 0.9793 0.9995 0.9985 22 3.18 2.18 1.28
24 0.9726 0.995 1.0012 23 5.14 2.34 1.87
25 0.9693 0.9936 0.9994 24 1.29 1.19 0.79
26 0.9475 0.9931 0.9985 25 2.60 1.60 0.60
27 0.945 0.9897 0.9938 26 3.33 1.43 0.63
28 0.9335 0.9891 0.9932 27 11.31 6.21 5.61
29 0.9253 0.9884 0.9899 28 7.84 3.54 3.14
30 0.9218 0.9876 0.9858 29 3.90 2.45 1.45
31 0.9176 0.987 0.984 30 1.59 1.19 0.49
32 0.9167 0.9761 0.9836 31 0.21 0.21 0.2
33 0.9164 0.9753 0.9807 32 0.01 0.01 0.01

Table 2. IEEE 33-bus RDS without DG: PF results (VP and power loss).

convergence curve of OOA for Type I and III DG optimized 33-bus RDS is illustrated in Fig. 9b. It was evident
from the convergence plot that the OOA algorithm never got stuck in the local optimal solution.

Comparative study
This subsection presents the comparative study between the simulation outcomes of OOA and other optimization
algorithms. For the comparative analysis, the simulation outcomes of ROA10, SOA11, ALOA17, ECOA19, GA20,
and SCA23 algorithms were compared with OOA. For a Type-I optimized DG placement, SOA11 reduced the
total RPL of the test system to 102.8 kW with a DG capacity of 2600 kW. ALOA17 optimized DG allocation with
a rating of 1542.67 kW, minimizing the RPL to 125.16 kW. Likewise, ROA10 and ECOA19 optimized Type-I DG
integration with 2590.2 kW and 1000 kW ratings have reduced the RPL to 111.02 kW and 127.28 kW, respectively.
Furthermore, GA20 and SCA13 have curtailed the RPL to 105.48 kW and 111.02 kW for an optimal DG capacity
of 2580 kW and 2590.1 kW, respectively. It is observed from the above summary that SOA11, ALOA17, ROA10,
ECOA19, GA20, and SCA23 algorithms have achieved 51.27, 40.67, 47.38, 39.67, 48.21, and 47.38% PL reduction
after the optimized Type-I DG placement. However, the proposed OOA optimization approach has cut down
the RPL of the test system to 100.27 kW through 2014.67 kW optimized DG allocation and achieved a 52.47%
PL reduction. A graphical presentation of the simulation result (RPL) of different algorithms after the optimized
Type-I DG accommodation is presented in Fig. 10.
For Type-III DG allocation, SOA11, ALOA14, GWO15, ROA10, HHO30, LSF-SA31, and WHO9 algorithms have
reduced the total RPL of the test system to 65.14 kW, 71.75 kW, 81.43 kW, 67.83 kW, 69.44 kW, 67.81 kW, and
61.31 kW via an optimized capacity of 2550, 2238.8, 1000, 3144.6, 2952.95, 3098.2, and 3081.7 kVA, respectively.
Furthermore, it is assessed that SOA11, ALOA14, GWO15, ROA10, HHO30, LSF-SA31, and WHO9 algorithms
have achieved 69.12, 65.99, 61.40, 67.85, 67.08, 67.86, and 70.94% PL reduction for the optimized type III
DG allocation. In the present study, OOA-optimized Type-III DG placement has minimized the total RPL to
59.16 kW and achieved a 71.95% PL reduction with a 2436.12 kVA DG rating. A graphical representation of the

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 5. VP (p.u) and RPL of IEEE 33-bus RDS before DG deployment.

Outcome Without DG Type-I DG Type-III DG

DG Location – 6 6
DG Size (kW/kVA) – 2014.67 2436.12
Total RPL in kW 210.98 100.27 59.16
Vmin in p.u 0.9038 0.9621 0.971

Table 3. Simulation outcome (Best) for IEEE 33-bus RDS after DG deployment.

Fig. 6. Demonstration of optimal bus selection for single type I DG allocation in 33-bus RDS.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 10

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 7. Demonstration of optimal bus selection for single type III DG allocation in 33-bus RDS.

Fig. 8. RPL of IEEE 33-bus RDS following the optimized DG allocation.

simulation test result (RPL) for different algorithms after the optimized Type-III DG placement is illustrated in
Fig. 11. The comparative study discloses that the OOA-optimized DG allocation (Type I and III) has achieved
better RPL reduction than the other algorithms. The comparative analysis also conveys the ability of OOA to
provide a comprehensive solution for a DG placement problem. The summary of simulation outcomes for
different algorithms to an optimized Type I and III DG placement is highlighted in Table 4.

Test system II: IEEE 118-bus RDS

Validation of the proposed technique on the 33-bus RDS alone may not guarantee its superiority and adoptability.
Hence, in this section, the robustness of the suggested OOA optimization technique is tested on the 118-bus
RDS large distribution power system. This test system carries 22,709.71 kW active power demand (APD) and
17,041.07 kVAR reactive power demand (RPD). Seven units of DGs are optimally integrated into this test system
to obtain significant power loss reduction.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 11

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 9. (a) VP of IEEE 33-bus RDS preceding and following DG deployment. (b) Convergence curve of OOA.

Fig. 10. RPL of 33-bus RDS for different algorithms after Type-I DG placement.

90
80
70
60
RPL in kW

50
40
30
20
10
0
ALOA GWO SOA ROA HHO LSF-SA `WHO Proposed

Fig. 11. RPL of 33-bus RDS for different algorithms after Type III DG placement.

Simulation findings without DG inclusion

BFS algorithm load flow execution on the test system without DG integration results in 1296.3 kW total AP
losses and 0.6424 per unit minimum voltage. Bus voltages are expressed in per unit on a base voltage of 11 kV.
Bus voltages of the 118-bus RDS before DG compensation are shown in Fig. 12. It was noticed that 45 out of 118
buses of the RDS have experienced a voltage magnitude fall below the recommended minimum voltage level
(0.95 p.u.).

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 12

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Simulation outcome
Technique DG location DG size Total RPL in kW/kVA % RPL reduction
Type – I DG placement
SOA11 6 2600 102.8 51.27
ALOA17 30 1542.67 125.16 40.67
ROA10 6 2590.2 111.02 47.38
ECOA19 30 1000 127.28 39.67
GA20 6 2580 105.48 48.21
SCA13 6 2590.1 111.02 47.38
Proposed 6 2014.67 100.27 52.47
Type – III DG placement
SOA11 6 2550 65.14 69.12
ALOA14 6 2238.8 71.75 65.99
GWO15 30 1000 81.43 61.40
ROA10 6 3144.6 67.83 67.85
HHO30 26 2952.95 69.44 67.08
LSF-SA31 6 3098.2 67.81 67.86
WHO9 6 3081.7 61.31 70.94
Proposed 6 2436.12 59.16 71.95

Table 4. IEEE 33-bus RDS: Comparison of test outcomes.

Fig. 12. VP of IEEE 118-bus RDS without and with seven units of type I and III DG inclusions.

Outcome Without DG Type-I DGs Type-III DGs

DG locations – 36, 69, 32, 75, 108, 49, 97 24, 109, 34, 85, 62, 111, 53
DG sizes (kW/kVA) – 1675, 1321, 3012, 2782, 2983, 2586, 2867 1980, 1673, 2786, 1709, 2118, 3431, 1645
Total RPL 1296.3 452.1 98.56
Vmin 0.6424 0.9802 0.9971
Iterations – 55 61
CPU time (Sec) – 67 74

Table 5. Simulated findings of IEEE 118-bus RDS with and without 7 units of DG inclusions.

Simulation findings with DG inclusion

Simulation findings of the large 118-bus RDS without and with multiple Type I and III DGs are presented in
Table 5. The results represent the best values obtained after 50 independent runs. Figure 12 presents the VP of
IEEE 118-bus RDS with seven units of Type I and III DG inclusions. The convergence characteristic of OOA for
optimizing multiple units of DGs is presented in Fig. 13.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 13

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 13. Convergence curve of OOA for multiple Type I and III DG unit optimizations.

Simulation findings
Technique Optimal bus locations Optimal sizes (kW) RPL (kW) Percentage RPL reduction Vmin
Proposed -OOA 36,69,32,75,108,49, ,97 1675, 1321, 3012, 2782, 2983, 2586, 2867 452.1 65.12 0.9802
I-DBEA32 96, 21, 73, 80, 50, 41, 109 2198, 1998, 3132, 2949, 3498, 2490, 3794 571.1 56.01 0.9744
IMOEHO33 20, 42, 50, 74, 80, 97, 110 2233, 1754, 3712, 2906, 3027, 2075, 3513 572.2 55.92 0.9743
QTLBO34 43, 49, 54, 74, 80, 94, 111 1588, 3846, 985, 3190, 3163, 1953, 3601 677.6 47.80 47.80
TLBO34 35, 48, 65, 72, 86, 99, 111 3246, 2886, 2431, 3306, 1992, 1604, 3598 705.8 45.63 0.957
SA35 36, 48, 56, 75, 88, 103, 116 7467, 7110, 3674, 2825, 2298, 5080, 461 900.1 30.66 0.8978

Table 6. Simulated findings comparison with 7 units of Type-I DG inclusions.

Simulation findings
Technique Optimal bus locations Optimal sizes (kVA) RPL (kW) Percentage RPL reduction Vmin
Proposed -OOA 24, 109, 34, 86, 61, 111 , 53 1980, 1673, 2786, 1709, 2118, 3431, 1645 98.56 92.39 0.9971
I-DBEA32 80, 41, 110, 20, 74, 96, 50 1794, 1998, 3031.7, 2147.3, 2331, 1582.7, 3199.7 143.35 88.95 0.9917
IMOEHO33 22, 41, 50, 74, 79, 91, 110 2060, 2339, 3967, 2787, 3107, 2087, 3713 147.8 88.61 0.9941
LSFSA35 36, 48, 56, 75, 88, 103, 116 7056, 2515, 4980, 3181, 723, 6161, 586 634.8 51.09 0.9438

Table 7. Simulated findings comparison with 7 units of Type-III DG inclusions.

Case I: type I DG units optimization The proposed OOA technique takes 55 iterations and 67 s to optimize
seven units of Type-I DG. OOA optimally allocates Type-I DG units at the buses 36, 69, 32, 75, 108, 49 and 97
in the 32nd run of the optimization study. Total RPL of the 118-bus test system is minimized from 1296.3 to
452.1 kW following the optimized disbursement of multiple DG units. Further, the optimized DG inclusion
has also improved the magnitude of the bus voltages and maintains it within the recommended minimum and
maximum values. After the optimized placement of Type-I DGs, the Vmin is improved from 0.6424 to 0.9802p.u.

Case II: type III DG units optimization For multiple Type-III DG unit optimizations, OOA takes 61 iterations
and 74 s of CPU time for optimal convergence. The buses 24, 109, 34, 85, 62, 111 and 53 are found to be the
optimal locations for Type-III DG assimilation. The best solution is obtained in the 28th run of the simulation
study. The total RPL is minimized to 98.56 kW and the minimum bus voltage is increased to 0.9971p.u following
the Type-III DG allocations. The simulation findings witnessed better performance for Type-III DG than Type-I
DG allocation.

Comparative study The simulation findings of the OOA-optimized DG allocation are related to the popular
optimization techniques such as I-DBEA32, IMOEHO33, QTLBO34, TLBO34, SA35, and LSFSA35. The simulation
results of different optimization techniques for the multiple units of Type I and III DG placement are outlined
in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. For an optimized multiple Type-I DG allocation, the RPL of the test system is
reduced by 65.12%. Furthermore, it is witnessed that OOA gives a better percentage of RPL reduction than
I-DBEA32, IMOEHO33, QTLBO34, TLBO34, and SA35. Additionally, better VP improvement is achieved with
OOA than with other cited techniques. Likewise, for multiple Type-III DG units, the proposed OOA technique
delivered better RPL reduction than I-DBEA32, IMOEHO33, and LSFSA35 techniques. Noticeably, superior re-

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 14

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 14. Malaysian 54-bus RDS.

Outcome Without DG Type-I DG Type-III DG

DG Location – 16 16
DG Size (kW/kVA) – 2674.9 3012.3
Total RPL 338.46 92.87 17.32
Vmin 0.9082 0.9615 0.9708

Table 8. Simulation outcome for Malaysian 54-bus radial distribution power network.

sults are obtained with Type-III DG allocation than with Type-I DG due to its reactive power for the distribution
power system.

Test system III: 54-bus Malaysian RDS

The applicability of the OOA optimization technique is tested on a practical 54-bus Malaysian distribution
power system besides IEEE benchmark RDSs. Malaysian RDS incorporates 54 buses and supplies a net real
power of 4.595 MW and a reactive power of 2.298 MVAr at a substation voltage of 11 kV. The single-line model
of the 54-bus Malaysian RDS is presented in Fig. 14. The PF execution for the test system results in 338.46 kW of
real power losses and 0.9082 p.u of minimum voltage (@bus no. 22). Before the placement of a DG unit, the test
system has an average bus voltage of 0.9383 p.u.
The simulation results for the Malaysian 54-bus RDS after the allocation of the DG unit are presented in Table
8. The deviation in bus voltages of Malaysian 54-bus RDS after the optimized assignment of a DG is illustrated
in Figs. 15a, 16b. The convergence plots of OOA for the DG-optimized 54-bus Malaysian RDS are presented in
Figs. 15b, 16b.
The potential bus for DG placement is discovered based on the fitness value of the objective function.
Figures 17 and 18 exhibit the optimal solution obtained for Type I and III DG unit allocation in each trial of
OOA execution. It is evident from Figs. 17 and 18 that optimization of DG (both Type I and III) at the 16th bus
yields the least fitness value compared to all other combinations. For Type I and III DG optimization, OOA
yields the best results in the 36th and 38th simulation runs.
The optimized Type-I DG placement minimizes the power losses of the test system from 338.46 to 92.87 kW
and enhanced the Vmin from 0.9082 to 0.9615 p.u. Similarly, optimized Type-III DG deployment has cut down
the power losses to 17.32 kW and increased the minimum bus voltage to 0.9708 p.u. The mean bus voltage of the
test system has been increased to 0.9769 and 0.9819 p.u. following a Type I and III DG allocation, respectively.
The optimized Type I and III DG employment significantly reduced the network line power losses by 72.56 and
94.88%, respectively. It was obvious from the test results presented in Table 8 that Type-III DG integration has
given a superior result to Type-I DG placement. Type-III DG placement achieved this outcome because of its
competence to inject reactive power besides a real power injection. However, the optimal size of Type-III DG is
more than that of Type-I DG.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 15

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 15. (a) Voltage profile variation after Type-I DG placement. (b) Convergence curve of OOA for Type-I
DG allocation.

Fig. 16. (a) Voltage profile variation after Type-III DG placement. (b) Convergence curve of OOA for Type-III
DG allocation.

Conclusion
In this work, an optimization approach using the Osprey optimization algorithm (OOA) was successfully
implemented to optimally allocate DG units in the different RDSs. The position and size of a Type-I (solar PV)
and Type-III (WT) DG were optimized to minimize the total RPL of RDS. The performance of OOA has been
realized on the 33-bus and 118-bus IEEE-testified RDSs and a real-time Malaysian 54-bus RDS. The optimized
single Type I and III DG placement in the 33-bus RDS reduced the total RPL by 52.47 and 71.95%, respectively,
with significant improvement in the bus voltage profiles. The optimized Type I and III DG deployment has
enhanced the minimum bus voltage by 0.0569 and 0.0666 p.u., respectively. Likewise, optimized inclusion of
multiple Type I and III DG units has reduced the RPL of the 118-bus RDS by 65.12 and 92.39%, respectively.
A comparative study was made between the simulation findings of OOA and the popular algorithms. The
comprehensive comparison outlined that the OOA-optimized DG deployment yielded better results than other
algorithms. Furthermore, the versatility of the proposed simulation study was tested on a real-time Malaysian

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 16

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 17. Demonstration of optimal bus selection for single Type-I DG allocation in 54-bus Malaysian RDS.

Fig. 18. Demonstration of Optimal bus selection for single Type-III DG allocation in in 54-bus Malaysian
RDS.

54-bus RDS. The simulation outcomes signify the effectiveness and adaptability of OOA on a real-world DG
placement problem.

Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reason-
able request.

Received: 20 January 2025; Accepted: 13 May 2025

References
1. Ntombela, Mlungisi, Musasa, Kabeya & Leoaneka, Moketjema Clarence. Power loss minimization and voltage profile improvement
by system reconfiguration, DG sizing, and placement. Computation 10, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation10100180 (2020).
2. Abedini, M. H., Sarkardehi, E. & Bagheri Sabzevar, H. Investigating effective parameters for enhancing energy efficiency with an
attached solar greenhouse in residential buildings: a case study in Tabriz, Iran. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 26, 1257–1271. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​o​i.​ ​o​r​g​/​1​0​
.​1​00​ ​7​/​s​4​2​1​0​7​-0​ ​2​4​-​0​1​2​4​9​-​9​​​​ (2025).
3. Abedini, Mohammad Hassan, Gholami, Hanieh & Sangin, Hamed. Multi-objective optimization of window and shading systems
for enhanced office building performance: A case study in Qom, Iran. J. Daylight. 12, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.15627/jd.2025.6
(2025).

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 17

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

4. Ghosh, S., Ghoshal, S. P. & Ghosh, S. Optimal sizing and placement of distributed generation in a network system. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 32(8), 849–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.01.029 (2010).
5. Bayat, A. & Bagheri, A. Optimal active and reactive power allocation in distribution networks using a novel heuristic approach.
Appl. Energy 233, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.030 (2019).
6. Purlu, M. & Turka, B. E. Optimal allocation of renewable distributed generations using heuristic methods to minimize annual energy
losses and voltage deviation index. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Sect. 10, 21455–21474. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3153042
(2022).
7. Ansari, M. M. et al. Planning for distribution system with grey wolf optimization method. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 15, 1485–1499
(2020).
8. Ali, M. H. et al. Single- and multi-objective modified aquila optimizer for optimal multiple renewable energy resources in
distribution network. Mathematics 10, 2129. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10122129 (2022).
9. Ali, M. H., Kamel, S. & Hassan, M. H. An improved wild horse optimization algorithm for reliability based optimal DG planning
of radial distribution networks. Energy Rep. 8, 582–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.023 (2022).
10. Khasanov, M., Kamel, S., Rahmann, C., Hasanien, H. M. & Al-Durra, A. Optimal distributed generation and battery energy storage
units integration in distribution systems considering power generation uncertainty. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 15, 3400–3422.
https://doi.org/10.1049/gtd2.12230 (2021).
11. Ali, E. S., Abd Elazim, S. M., Hakmi, S. H. & Mosaad, M. I. Optimal allocation and size of renewable energy sources as distributed
generations using shark optimization algorithm in radial distribution systems. Energies 16, 3983. ​h​t​t​p​s:​ ​/​/​d​o​i​.​o​r​g/​ ​1​0​.​3​3​9​0​/​en ​ ​1​6​1​0​3​
9​8​3​​​​ (2023).
12. Truong, K. H., Nallagownden, P. & Elamvazuthi, I. A quasi-oppositional-chaotic symbiotic organisms search algorithm for optimal
allocation of DG in radial distribution networks. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 88, 106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106067
(2020).
13. Selim, A., Kamel, S. & Jurado, F. Efficient optimization technique for multiple DG allocation in distribution networks. Appl. Soft
Comput. J. 86, 105938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105938 (2020).
14. Mohamed, A., Ali, S., Alkhalaf, S., Senjyu, T. & Hemeida, A. M. Optimal allocation of hybrid renewable energy system by multi-
objective water cycle algorithm. Sustainability 11, 6550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236550 (2019).
15. Prakash, D. B. & Lakshminarayana, C. Optimal siting of capacitors in radial distribution network using whale optimization
algorithm. Alex. Eng. J. 56, 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.10.002 (2017).
16. Kumar, Injeti Sathish & Prema Kumar, N. A novel approach to identity optimal access point and capacity of multiple DGs in a
small, medium, and large scale radial distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 45, 142–151. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​oi​ ​.​o​r​g​/​1​0​.​10​ ​1​6​/​j​.​
i​j​e​pe​ ​s​.​2​0​1​2​.​0​8​.​0​4​3​​​​ (2013).
17. Imran, A. M. & Kowsalya, M. Optimal size and siting of multiple distributed generators in distribution system using bacterial
foraging optimization. Swarm Evol. Comput. 15, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2013.12.001 (2014).
18. Prakash, D. B. & Lakshminarayana, C. MPSO based DG and capacitor placement for loss reduction. J. Electr. Eng. 17(2), 295–301
(2017).
19. Pham, T. D., Nguyen, T. T. & Dinh, B. H. Find optimal capacity and location of distributed generation units in radial distribution
networks by using enhanced coyote optimization algorithm. Neural Comput. Appl. 33, 4343–4371. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​o​i​.o ​ ​r​g​/​1​0​.​1​0​07​ ​/​s​0​0​5​2​
1​-​02​ ​0​-​0​5​2​3​9​-​1​​​​ (2021).
20. Hassan, A., Fahmy, F., Nafeh, A. & Abuelmagd, M. Genetic single objective optimisation for sizing and allocation of renewable DG
systems. Int. J. Sustain. Energ. 36, 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2015.1053393 (2017).
21. Manafi, H., Ghadimi, N., Ojaroudi, M. & Farhadi, P. Optimal placement of distributed generations in radial distribution systems
using various PSO and DE algorithms. Elektron. Elektrotech. 19, 53–57. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.19.10.1941 (2013).
22. Dehghani, M. & Trojovský, P. Osprey optimization algorithm: A new bioinspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving engineering
optimization problems. Front. Mech. Eng. 8, 126450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2022.1126450 (2023).
23. Rajendran, A. & Narayanan, K. Optimal multiple installation of DG and capacitor for energy loss reduction and loadability
enhancement in the radial distribution network using the hybrid WIPSO–GSA algorithm. Int. J. Ambient Energy 41(2), 129–141
(2020).
24. Rao, S., Ravindra, K. & Satish, S.V. Narasimham. Power loss minimization in distribution system using network reconfiguration in
the presence of distributed generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(1), 317–325 (2013).
25. Kayal, P. & Chanda, C. Placement of wind and solar based DGs in distribution system for power loss minimization and voltage
stability improvement. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 53, 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.05.047 (2013).
26. Grove, R. A., Henny, C. J. & Kaiser, J. L. Osprey: Worldwide sentinel species for assessing and monitoring environmental
contamination in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 12(1), 25–44. ​h​t​tp ​ ​s​:​/​/​d​o​i​.​or​ ​g​/​1​0​.​1​0​8​0/​ ​1​0​
9​3​7​4​0​0​80​ ​2​5​4​5​0​7​8​​​​ (2009).
27. Poole, A. F., Bierregaard, R. O. & Martell, M. S. Osprey: Pandion Haliaetus. In The Birds of North America (eds Poole, A. et al.) (The
Academy of Natural Sciences, The American Ornithologists’ Union, 2002).
28. Szaro, R. C. Reproductive success and foraging behavior of the osprey at seahorse key, Florida. J. Wilson Bull. 90, 112–118 (1978).
29. Baran, M. E. & Wu, F. F. Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing. IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv. 4(2), 1401–1407. https://doi.org/10.1109/61.25627 (1989).
30. Selim, A., Kamel, S., Alghamdi, A. S. & Jurado, F. Optimal placement of DGs in distribution system using an improved harris
hawks optimizer based on single and multi-objective approaches. IEEE Access 8, 52815–52829. ​h​t​t​ps​ ​:​/​/​d​o​i​.​o​rg​ ​/​1​0​.​1​1​0​9​/A ​ ​C​C​E​S​S​.​2​
0​20​ ​.​2​9​8​0​2​4​5​​​​ (2020).
31. Nowdeh, S. A. et al. Fuzzy multi-objective placement of renewable energy sources in distribution system with objective of loss
reduction and reliability improvement using a novel hybrid method. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 77, 761–779. ​ht​ ​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​o​i.​ ​o​r​g​/​1​0​.​1​01​ ​6​/​j​.​a​
s​o​c​.2​ ​0​1​9​.​0​2​.​0​0​3​​​​ (2019).
32. Aamir Ali, M. U. Optimal site and size of distributed generation allocation in radial distribution network using multi-objective
optimization. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 9(2), 405–415 (2021).
33. Meena, N. K., Parashar, S. & Swarnkar, A. Improved elephant herding optimization for multi-objective DER accommodation in
distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 14(3), 1029–1039 (2018).
34. Farhat, I. Ant colony optimization for optimal distributed generation in distribution systems. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Eng. 7(8), 461–465
(2013).
35. Injeti, S. K. & Kumar, N. P. A novel approach to identify optimal access point and capacity of multiple DGs in a small, medium and
large scale radial distribution systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 45(1), 142–151 (2013).

Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to Taif University, Saudi Arabia, for supporting this work through project
number (TU-DSPP-2024-32).

Author contributions
Rajakumar P: Validation, Visualization, Writing—review & editing. Balasubramaniam P M: Writing—original

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 18

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Arunkumar Munimathan:

Writing—original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Mamdooh Alwetai-
shi: Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Mohammad
Imtiyaz Gulbarga: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation. Chinnaiyan Senthilpari: Investigation,
Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing—review & editing.

Declarations

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.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.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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 ​h​t​t​p​:​/​/​cr​ ​e​a​t​i​v​e​c​o​mm
​ ​o​
n​s​.​o​r​g​/​li​ ​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y-​ ​n​c​-​n​d​/​4​.​0​/​​​​.​​

© The Author(s) 2025

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:18775 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02411-2 19