## 3 Results and Discussion
### Performance Analysis and Comparison of Methods  
The results obtained, using the novel approach suggested in this paper considering the integration of both single and multiple DGs in a radial distribution power system, for loss minimization and voltage profile improvement are compared with the results obtained using different existing methods in this section. Based on single DG integration, the results presented in Table 11 were obtained. The results obtained when multiple DGs were integrated into the system are presented in Table 12. From the single DG integration results presented in Table 11, the results of eight different methods are compared with the results obtained using the non-iterative-based method suggested in this paper. Based on this comparison of results, it can be seen that the IA method in [45], ELF method in [45], hybrid analytical-heuristic method in [46] and ALO method in [47] all identified bus 6 as the optimal location for single DG integration. The VSI-based method in [48] identified bus 30 as the optimal location, while the DAPSO method in [49] and the EVPSO method in [49] identified bus 8 and bus 11, respectively. Although it was found that the power losses were reduced and the voltage profile of the network was enhanced such that none of the system voltage magnitude lay outside the prescribed voltage limits of 0.95-1.05 pu, more improved optimized power losses and voltage profiles were obtained with the non-iterative-based method presented in this paper. In this study, bus 18 was identified as the optimal site for locating the single DG, with a power loss of 102.70 kW before DG integration and 30.70 kW after DG integration. This clearly indicates that a significant reduction in power loss (70.1%) was achieved compared to other existing methods. Furthermore, it can be seen that there was a significant enhancement in the voltage profile based on the method presented in this study, with a minimum voltage of 0.9843 pu. Therefore, it can be seen that the method presented in this paper achieved the minimum voltage and it is associated with the highest percentage of power loss reduction compared to other existing methods.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No. of DGs** & **DG Sizes (MW)** & **DG Locations** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Power Loss** \\ **(MW)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Minimum** \\ **Voltage** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
0 & 0 & NA & 1.0268 & 0.8297 (bus 18) \\
1 & 2 & 18 & 0.3066 & 0.9843 (bus 30) \\
2 & 2, 1.04 & 18, 33 & 0.2348 & 0.9890 (bus 30) \\
3 & 2, 1.04, 2.64 & 18, 33, 32 & 0.2045 & 0.9960 (bus 28) \\
**4** & **2, 1.04, 2.64, 3.08** & **18, 33, 32, 31** & **0.3502** & **0.9063 (bus 27)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Influence of increasing the number of DGs on the system voltage profile and power losses.  
The results obtained when the influence of multiple DG integration into a network was investigated, using seven different methods for the sake of comparison, are presented in Table 12. From Table 12, it can be seen that with the locations (buses 18, 33 and 32) identified as the sites for integrating the DGs into the network, the method presented in this paper gave the highest percentage reduction of 80.1% in power losses, with a minimum voltage of 0.9960 at bus 28. It can also be seen that the network losses of 1.0268 MW obtained in this study before the integration of DGs is the least when compared to the losses obtained using all other six existing techniques. The implication of this information is that by exploring the use of the method suggested in this study, a better improvement in the voltage with a minimum power loss is obtained.