A Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Particle Swarm Optimization

EUROPEAN TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL POWER Euro. Trans. Electr. Power (2010) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/etep.494
A multi-objective optimal power ow using particle swarm optimization

J. Hazra1*,y and A. K. Sinha2
2 1 IBM India Research Lab, Bangalore, India Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Kharagpur, India
SUMMARY This paper presents a multi-objective optimal power ow technique using particle swarm optimization. Two conicting objectives, generation cost, and environmental pollution are minimized simultaneously. A multiobjective particle swarm optimization method is used to solve this highly nonlinear and non-convex optimization problem. A diversity preserving technique is incorporated to generate evenly distributed Pareto optimal solutions. A fuzzy membership function is proposed to choose a compromise solution from the set of Pareto optimal solutions. The algorithm is tested on IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems and its effectiveness is illustrated. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words:
multi-objective optimization; pareto-optimality; particle swarm optimization; optimal power ow
1. INTRODUCTION In operation and planning of power systems, operators need to make decisions with respect to different objectives. Hence, several tools have been developed to assist the operators. Optimal Power Flow (OPF) is one of them which helps the operators in running the system optimally under specic constraints. A lot of research starting from early 1960s has been done in this eld to minimize the total generation cost. After the Clean Air Act Amendments (Kyoto Protocol) in 1990, operating at minimum cost maintaining the security is no longer the sufcient criterion for dispatching electric power. Minimization of polluted gases is also becoming mandatory for the generation utilities in many countries. Hence, OPF problem becomes a multiobjective optimization problem. Main challenges in a multiobjective optimization are generation of good quality solutions, generation of uniformly distributed Pareto set, maximizing the diversity of the developed Pareto set, selection of best compromise solution from the Pareto set, computational efciency, etc. Several methods have been developed to solve mutli-objective optimization problems. By way of example, the penalty function method [1], weighted sum method [2], "-constrained method [3], non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) based approach [4], etc. have been used for solving various multiobjective optimization problems. However, these methods have difculties. For example, in penalty function method choosing the proper penalty factors is a difcult task [5]. Weighted sum approach combines all the objectives to a single objective by using weight factors. This formulation may loose the signicance of the objective function and, moreover, there is no rational basis of determining the weight factors for noncommensurate objectives [4]. " constrained method avoids the use of weight factors for multiple objectives but the difculty with this method is that it requires repeated run for each relaxed level of " to get the Pareto-optimal set [4]. NSGA method is very sensitive to tness sharing factor [6]. Moreover,
*Correspondence to: J. Hazra, IBM India Research Lab, Bangalore, India. y E-mail: jaghazra@in.ibm.com Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. HAZRA AND A. K. SINHA
these methods have not addressed the problem of diversity preserving, maximizing the diversity, selection of best compromise solution, etc. This paper emphasizes on the development of a multi-objective optimal power ow technique using particle swarm optimization method which has overcome some of the above mentioned difculties. Instead of combining all the objectives to a single objective, objectives are solved simultaneously and hence retain the signicance of each objective. To maintain diversity among the Pareto-optimal solutions a diversity preserving technique is proposed. To obtain diversication special care is taken in the selection process. Special care is also taken care to prevent non-dominated solutions from being lost. A fuzzy satisfying method is also proposed to help in choosing a compromise solution from the set of Pareto-optimal solutions. A power ow method which considers realistic situations such as load characteristics, generator regulation, on-load tap adjustment, etc. is used for solving the OPF problem. Proposed method has been tested on IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems and its effectiveness is presented. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the OPF formulation and Section 3 presents the brief overview of the power ow method used. Section 4 describes the PSO technique used in this paper. Section 5 introduces the Fuzzy membership function for choosing compromise Paretooptimal solution. OPF solution strategy is presented in Section 6. Section 7 presents the simulation results whereas Section 8 concludes the proposed work.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION Let fi ~ i 1; . . .; m be m objective functions dened over n dimensional search space. A multix, objective optimization problem can then be formulated as: minimize fi ~ ff1 ~ f2 ~ . . .; fm ~ x x; x; xg (1)
subjected to the constraints. This will give a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. A decision vector, x (a set of control parameters) is said to be Pareto optimal, if there is no other decision vector, y dominating x with respect to the set of objective functions. The decision vector x is said to strictly dominate another vector y (denoted by ~ y) if: x0~ fi ~ x and x y fi ~ < fi ~ for at least one i: (3) fi ~ y 8i 1; . . .; m (2)
Though primary objective of OPF is to minimize the generation cost, with the increase in environmental awareness and after the Clean Air Act Amendments (Kyoto Protocol) in 1990, operating at minimum cost is no longer the sufcient criterion for dispatching electric power. Minimization of polluted gases such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) etc. is also becoming mandatory for the generation utilities. Therefore, in this paper OPF is formulated as two objectives optimization problem as follows.
2.1. Minimization of cost of generation The generator cost function for any turbo generator is obtained from data points taken during heat run tests. Using these data points generator cost curves are approximately tted by quadratic functions. However, for large turbo generators this approximation does not hold good. For large turbo generators, just before opening a valve, a turbine operates at maximum efciency at that loading. However, as soon as a valve opens turbine operates at less efciency because of the throttling of the steam passing through the throttled control valve. To model the effects of valve-points, a recurring rectied sinusoid contribution was proposed to add with the quadratic input-output equation as
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Euro. Trans. Electr. Power (2010) DOI: 10.1002/etep
A MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL POWER FLOW
follows [7]: f1
NG X i1 NG X i1
Fgi (4) pi qi Pgi ri P 2 gi jei sinfi Pgi Pi;min j
where f1 is the total fuel cost; Fgi is the generation cost of generator i; NG is the number of participating generators; Pgi is the generation of ith generator; Pi;min is the minimum generation of ith generator; pi ; qi ; ri are cost coefcients of generator i; and ei ; fi are coefcients of generator i reecting valve point loading effect. 2.2. Minimization of polluted gas emission Like generator cost curve, emission curve is obtained using curve tting from practical emission data of thermal plant. The amount of emission from a fossil-based thermal generator unit depends on the amount of power generated by the unit. Total emission generated is usually approximated as sum of a quadratic function and an exponential function of the active power output of the generators as follows [4,8]: f2
NG X i1
102 ai bi Pgi g i P2 ji expli Pgi gi
(5)
where, a, b, g, j, and l are emission coefcients. Subjected to the constraints of load and generation balance and operating limits of each equipment.
3. POWER FLOW MODEL 3.1. Load characteristics In general majority of the loads are frequency and voltage dependent. To take care of voltage and frequency dependence, both real and reactive power loads are modeled as follows [9]: Pdi Pdio 1 ki Df ai bi jVi j ci jVi j2 Qdi Qdoi 1 ki0 Df a0i b0i jVi j c0i jVi j2 (6) (7)
where Pdi ; Qdi are actual active and reactive load at bus i; Pdio ; Qdoi are active and reactive load at bus i for nominal voltage and nominal frequency; Df is the system frequency deviation from normal frequency; jVi j is the bus voltage magnitude at bus i; ki ; ai ; bi ; ci are coefcients of active load at bus i with ai bi ci 1; and ki0 ; a0i ; b0i ; c0i are coefcients of reactive load at bus i with a0i b0i c0i 1. All quantities are in per unit. 3.2. Generator characteristics Real power output of any generator with free governor operation is adjusted by the governor droop characteristics. This can be expressed as: ngi ngi X X Pmaxik Pgi Pgik Psetik Df (8) Rik k1 k1 Pminik Pgik Pmaxik (9)
where ngi is the number of generators at bus i; Pgi is the total active power generation at bus i; Pgik is the active power generation of kth unit at bus i; Psetik is the set value of active power generation of kth unit
at bus i; Pmaxik ; Pminik are maximum and minimum generations of kth generator at bus i; and Rik is the regulation constant of kth generator at bus i. All quantities are in per unit. 3.3. Real power ow equations Static real power ow equations considering follows [9]: 2 0 3 2 DP1 6 jV j 7 6 B11 B12 : : 6 1 7 6 6 0 7 6 DP2 7 6 7 6 6 6 jV2 j 7 6 B21 B22 : : 7 6 6 6 : 76 7 6 6 : : : 6 : 7 6 : 7 6 : 6 : : : 7 6 6 6 DP 0 7 6 4 n5 4 Bn1 Bn2 : : jVn j load and generation characteristics are derived as 3 b1 k1 Pdo1 72 Dd 3 1 7 k1 R1k jV1 j 76 7 ng2 76 Dd 7 P Pmax2k 2 76 7 b2 k2 Pdo2 76 7 k1 R2k jV2 j 76 7 76 7 : : 76 7 76 7 : : 74 5 7 ngn 5 DDf P Pmaxnk bn kn Pdon k1 Rnk jVn j
ng1 P Pmax1k
(10)
3.4. Reactive power ow equations Static reactive power ow equations considering load and generation characteristics are derived as follows [9]: 2 0 3 DQ1 32 3 2 0 DV1 6 jV j 7 B11 2c1 Qdo1 B12 : : B1n 6 1 7 6 76 7 6 0 7 76 7 0 6 DQ2 7 6 76 DV2 7 B21 B22 2c2 Qdo2 : : B2n 7 6 6 76 7 6 6 jV2 j 7 6 76 7 6 : 7 6 : : : : : 76 7 7 6 6 76 : 7 (11) 76 6 76 7 : : : : : 6 : 7 6 76 7 7 6 6 76 7 7 6 0 6 DQ 0 7 6 Bn1 Bn2 : : Bnn 2cn Qdon 76 : 7 76 7 6 6 n7 54 5 7 4 6 4 jVn j 5 DVn
4. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (PSO) Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a simple and efcient population based optimization method proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart [10]. In PSO, potential solutions are called particles and population of particles is called swarm. Each particle in a swarm ies in the search space toward the optimum or a quasi-optimum solution based on its own experience and experiences of nearby particles. Let us dene search space, S in n dimension and the swarm consists of N particles. Each particle i, has its position dened by xit fxi1;t ; xi2;t ; . . .; xin;t g and a velocity dened by vit fvi1;t ; vi2;t ; . . .; xin;t g in variable space S at time t. Position and velocity of each particle changes with time (generation). Velocity and position of each particle in the next generation (time step) can be calculated as: vij;t1 w vij;t c1 rand pij;t xij;t c2 rand pg xij;t j;t xij;t1 xij;t vij;t1 8i 1; . . .; N (12) (13)
where N is the number of particles in the swarm; n is the dimension of solution vector; w is the inertia weight; t is the generation number; c1 ; c2 are acceleration constant; randis the uniform random
number in the range [0,1]; vij;t is the velocity of particle i at generation t; xij;t is the position of particle i at generation t; pg is the global best at generation t; pij;t is the best position that particle i could nd so j;t far. In Equation (12), global best pg conceptually connects all the particles in the population to one j;t another, so that each particle is inuenced by the very best performance of the entire population. It encourages the particles to move toward itself, and particles move in its direction. 4.1. Initialization PSO is initialized with a group of random particles (solutions) and then searches for optima by updating particles. In a PSO, each particle is a k-dimensional real-valued vector, where k is the number of the control variables. Each control variable of any particle i is initialized randomly within its range xmin ; xmax as follows: j j xij;t0 xmin rand xmax xmin for j 1 to k j j j (14)
At initial step (t 0) as there is no idea about particles velocity, at t 0, velocities of the particles are initialized with their initial positions as follows: vij;t0 xij;t0 for j 1 to k (15)
4.2. Limiting velocity and position The particle swarm algorithm proceeds by modifying the distance that each particle moves on each dimension per iteration. Changes in the velocity are stochastic and can expand into wider and wider cycles through the problem space, eventually approaching innity. Commonly used method is to limit the velocity within its maximum value (Vmax ) as follows: if vij;t >Vmax ; vij;t Vmax if vij;t <Vmax ; vij;t Vmax Similarly, positions may be limited as follows: if xij;t >xmax ; xij;t xmax j j if vij;t <xmax ; vij;t xmax j j (18) (19) (16) (17)
Clerc and Kennedy [11] have suggested constriction factor approach to limit the velocity oscillation. When constriction factor is used in PSO, velocity equation is modied as follows: h i (20) vij;t1 j vij;t c1 rand Pij;t xij;t c2 rand Pg xij;t j;t where j 2k p j2 2 4j k"0; 1; c1 c2 ; >4 (21)
Where parameter k allows the user to control the degree of convergence of the PSO algorithm [11]. 4.3. Parameter selection 4.3.1. Inertia weight (w). Suitable selection of weight factor w helps in quick convergence. A large weight factor facilitates global exploration (i.e., searching of new areas) while small weight factor facilitates local exploration. Therefore, it is convenient to choose large weight factor for initial
iterations and gradually smaller weight factor for successive iterations. Following function is used for dynamic inertia weight: w wi wi wf iter itermax (22)
where wi is the initial weight factor; wf is the nal weight factor; itermax is the maximum number of iterations allowed. 4.3.2. Constants c1 ; c2 . Acceleration constant c1 called cognitive parameter pulls each particle toward local best position whereas constant c2 called social parameter pulls the particle toward global best position. Usually values of c1 and c2 lies between 0 and 4.
4.3.3. Maximum velocity (Vmax ). If velocity limit (Vmax ) is very low particle may not explore sufciently and on the other hand if velocity limit (Vmax ) is very high it may oscillate about optimal solution. In this paper, a velocity controlling scheme is used which helps in better convergence. Instead of xing the maximum velocity, it is decreased linearly with the increase in generation as follows: vmax vi vi vf iter itermax (23)
where vmax is the maximum velocity; vi is the initial velocity; vf is the nal velocity; and itermax is the maximum number of iterations allowed. This helps to maintain balance between exploration and exploitation and ensure convergence of the algorithm.
4.4. Finding best local guide In case of multi objective optimization, there may not exist a single best solution and instead of a single solution it provides a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. Pareto-optimal solutions obtained in each iteration are stored in an archive jAj and the archive is updated in each iteration to make it domination free. All the Pareto-optimal solutions in the archive are equally good. Therefore, in the proposed technique, best local guide (Pg ) for each particle is identied from the archive using sigma method [12] j;t as presented in Figure 1. In sigma method, each particle is assigned a s value with coordinate say (f1 ; f2 ) for two objectives so that all the points which are on the line f2 af1 have same s value. Therefore, for two objectives s can be calculated as:
2 2 2 2 s f1 f2 =f1 f2
(24)
f2
non-dominated solution particle
=0 ma sig
sigma=-1
k j
sigma=1
f1
Figure 1. Finding best local guide using sigma method.

where f1 and f2 are the tness values for objective 1 and objective 2, respectively. For m objective functions s is calculated as below: 2 7 6 6 f 2 f 2 7 6 2 37 7 6 7 2 6 2 2 s 6 : 7=f1 f2 . . . fm 6 : 7 7 6 7 6 4 2 25 fm f1
2 2 f1 f2
(25)
When two s values are close to each other, two particles are on two lines which are close to each other. To nd the best local guide for any particle (k), sigma value of that particle (k) is compared with the sigma values of all the archive members and the best matched archive member ( j) is selected as best local guide for that particle (k). 4.5. Diversity preserving Multi-objective optimization techniques nally provide a set of Pareto-optimal solutions to the Decision Maker (DM) while optimizing a set of conicting objectives. Sometimes these Paretooptimal solutions may be concentrated in a part of the search space which may overlook more efcient solutions in the other parts of the search space. Hence, DM always prefers a well-distributed set of solutions throughout the search space. Therefore, in multi-objective optimization, preserving diversity among Pareto-optimal solutions is an important issue. In the proposed diversity preserving algorithm, in each PSO iteration non-dominated solutions are copied to archive. During iterations, tness values of each particle of population is compared with the tness values of the archive members. Three situations may arise i.e., (i) particle may be dominated by some archive members (ii) particle may be non-dominated with respect to all archive members and (iii) particle may be non-dominated with respect to some archive members and dominate other members. In rst case, algorithm does not consider the particle to enter into archive. In case 2, particle is included into the archive and in case 3, particle is included into the archive and at the same time all the archive members dominated by the particle are removed from archive. As non-dominated solutions are copied to archive in iteration, the size of archive increases rapidly which increases the computational burden. To maintain a well distributed xed size archive, a diversity preserving technique is proposed based on crowding distances of each solution. In the proposed approach, solutions are sorted according to each objective value and for any solution i, crowding distance with respect to objective j, is dened as crwdji mindi1;i ; di;i1 where, d represents Euclidian distance between two solutions. Overall crowding for any solution i is dened as the cumulative sum of individual crowding of i corresponding to all the objectives. To preserve the end solutions, large crowding values are assigned to them. To preserve diversity, in each iteration solutions with least crowding value is removed. The complete diversity preserving algorithm is shown in Table I.
5. SELECTION OF COMPROMISE SOLUTION Multi-objective optimization provides a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. However, decisions with Pareto optimality or efciency are not uniquely determined, the nal decision must be selected from among the set of Pareto-optimal solutions. Consequently, the aim in solving multi-objective optimization problems is to derive a compromise or satiscing solution of a decision maker which is also Pareto-optimal based on subjective value judgements. Therefore, fuzzy set theory may be useful in this decision-making problem. By considering the vague nature of human judgements, it is quite natural to assume that the decision maker (DM) may have a fuzzy goal for each of the objectives. These fuzzy goals can be quantied by
Table I. Proposed diversity preserving technique. l jAj for p 1 to N for y 1 to l if fi ~p <fi ~y for at least one i x x x x and fi ~p > fi ~y for at least one i copy the particle to archive, l l 1 if fi ~p fi ~y 8 i x x x x and fi ~p < fi ~y for at least one i delete archive member y, l l1 if (l>archive size) for i 1 to l, set crwdi 0 for j 1 to m A sort(A, m) crwdj1 crwdjl 1 for i 2 to (l 1) crwdji mindi1;i ; di;i1 for i 1 to l P crwdi m crwdji j1 delete archive members with least crowding values and maintain the archive size Number of solutions in archive for each particle for each archive member if the particle is non-dominated w.r.t. any archive member if the particle dominates any archive member y
initialize distances for each objective sort using each objective value end solutions are preserved for all other solutions d represents Euclidian distance
eliciting the corresponding linear membership functions through the interaction with the DM. The best compromised solution should have the closest distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution. However, it is not possible in real life situation that one particular alternative satisfy both these conditions simultaneously. Therefore, a relative importance has to be given to both of these distances. To formulate fuzzy membership function, DM is asked to assess a unacceptable value of a objective f denoted by fimax, and a satisfactory value of f denoted by fimin. With these fuzzy goals, membership function could be represented by a linear function fimin and fimax as shown in Figure 2. Here membership value 0 means least satisfaction whereas 1 indicates maximum satisfaction. Mathematically fuzzy membership function for each objective can be dened as: 1 mi fimax fi max f max fi i 0 if if if fi fimin fimin <fi <fimax fi !fimax (26)
where mi is the membership value of objective i; fimin is the value of objective i which is completely satisfactory; fimax is the value of objective i which is completely unsatisfactory.
ui 1
0 fi
min
fi
max
fi
Figure 2. Fuzzy membership function.

Each Pareto-optimal solution has a fuzzy membership for each objective. Overall membership value of a Pareto-optimal solution is dened by summing the membership values for all the objectives. Normalized membership function for each solution is dened as:
Nobj P
m
k
i1 M P P Nobj
mk i (27) mk i
k1 i1
where Nobj is the number of objective functions; M is number of Pareto-optimal solutions; and mk is membership value of non-dominated solution k. The Pareto-optimal solution that attains the maximum membership mk is chosen as the best compromise solution.
6. SOLUTION STRATEGY In the proposed method, objectives are optimized by controlling generators active power generations, generators voltage magnitudes and transformers tap positions. In order to take care of the effect of automatic controllers, in each iteration of the PSO algorithm load-generation balance is maintained after updating particles velocity and position. For each particle, total generation is calculated by summing all the updated control variables corresponding to each generator. Effective load at each bus is calculated using Equations (6) and (7). Total system load is calculated by summing all the individual bus loads. Now PSO control variables corresponding to each generator are adjusted to balance the total system load and loss (typically 3% of the system total load) as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) initialize PSO population and archive, update velocity and position of each particle, calculate total system load, totload Snbus , i1 calculate total generation capacity, totpmax Sngen Pmaxi , i1 for particle calculate total generation, totgen Sngen Pgi , i1 diff totgentotload loss, if diff<0:001 go to step 10 for i 1 to ngen Pgi Pgi diff Pmaxi =totpmax if Pgi >Pmaxi Pgi Pmaxi if Pgi <Pmini Pgi Pmini go to step 5, solve Equations (10) and (11), obtained generations, voltage magnitudes, and transformer taps are assigned as particles latest position, repeat the same procedure for all the particles, update archive using proposed diversity preserving technique, go to step 2 for PSO next iteration, stop simulation when converges.
(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Evolutionary optimizations are unconstrained optimization techniques. However, OPF is associated with some equality and inequality constraints. In this paper a dynamic penalty function method is used for constraint handling. A penalty proportional to the extent of constraint violation is added to the objective function value if any violation occurs. The penalty function used is given by Fx f x hx Hx
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(28)
Euro. Trans. Electr. Power (2010) DOI: 10.1002/etep
Read input data
Select the objectives to be optimized Select control variables Select PSO control variables Iteration t = 0 Initialize Population, Pt Evaluate population, Pt Send non-dominated particles ( w.r.t. to archive members) to the archive Modify velocity and position of each particle Number of members in archive is more? Yes Truncate Archive iteratively using crowding distance
No
t > tmax Yes
No
t = t +1
Compute fuzzy membership of each member in the archive
Select the solution with highest fuzzy membership value as best compromised solution
Figure 3. Computational ow of the proposed OPF.
where f x is the objective function of the constrained problem; hx is the penalty value which is a function of iteration number; Hx is the penalty factor and is given by Hx
n2 X i1
max0; gi x2
n1 X j1
hj x2
(29)
where gi x<0 are the n2 inequality constraints and hj x 0 are the n1 equality constraints. Complete owchart of the proposed method is shown in Figure 3.
7. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 7.1. Test system details To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, simulations were carried out on IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems. For IEEE 30 bus system minimum and maximum generation limits and transmission line capacities were taken from Reference [13]. Minimum and maximum generation limits for 118 bus were taken from Reference [14]. Due to unavailability of line capacity data for 118 bus system, following data were used: 150 MVA for voltage level V1, 250 MVA for voltage level V2 and 350 MVA
for the transformers. For IEEE 118 bus system negative generations were treated as load. Generator cost coefcients and emission coefcients used in simulation are given in Appendix-A. 7.2. Convergence characteristics Evolutionary computation techniques are sensitive to proper selection of the control parameters. These parameters are selected through experiment. For the simulations, PSO parameters were selected from Reference [15]. With the selected parameters an experiment was done to optimize the swarm size for each system. Convergence characteristics with different size of swarm are given in Figure 4. From Figure 4 it is clear that swarm of 10 and 50 particles for IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems, respectively, provide satisfactory convergence characteristic. 7.3. Dynamic velocity control of PSO Like any heuristic method, within limited number of iterations (100) proposed method may not converge to the global optimal solution at all the time. However, if we run the simulation for large number of iterations (>1000), it will converge to global solution in each run but computational time will be very large. Therefore, within limited iterations, performances could not be judged by the results of a single run. Many trials should be done to reach a useful conclusion about the performance of the algorithm. Therefore, 100 independent runs were carried to test the effectiveness of the velocity control
Figure 4. Convergence characteristics with swarm size.

Table II. Test results for 100 independent trials. System best 30 bus 118 bus 531 244 7 120 814 Proposed worst 541 362 7 236 824 avg. 532 158 7 130 309 best 531 244 7 124 263 CFA worst 549 579 7 350 657 avg. 533 277 7 141 897 64 73 PI
effect incorporated into PSO. Best, worst, and average minima obtained by the proposed method are given in Table II. Table II shows that For IEEE 30 bus system best solution obtained is 531 244 Rs/h and the average solution obtained is 532 158 Rs/h. Therefore, cost variation band is only 0.17% of best cost. Similarly, cost variation band for IEEE 118 bus system is 0.13%. These results show cost variation band is very small. Proposed method was compared with the commonly used PSO with Constriction Factor Approach (CFA) [11]. Table II shows that for IEEE 30 bus system best costs obtained by both the methods are same, however, worst and average costs are better in proposed approach. For IEEE 118 bus system best, worst and average costs by proposed method are better than CFA approach. Out of 100 independent runs, proposed method outperforms CFA based approach in 64 and 73 runs for IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems, respectively. This shows that proposed method can explore better solution than CFA approach.
7.4. Comparison with other optimization techniques To show the effectiveness in solving multiple objectives, proposed method was compared with the multi-objective economic dispatch methods in References [16,17] and [4]. Tables III and IV present
Table III. Best fuel cost and corresponding emission. Generator LP [16] MOSST [17] NSGA [4] Case1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Best Cost ($/h) Emission (ton/h) 0.15 0.30 0.55 1.05 0.46 0.35 606.31 0.2233 0.1125 0.302 0.5311 1.0208 0.5311 0.3625 605.89 0.2222 0.1567 0.287 0.4671 1.0467 0.5037 0.3729 600.57 0.2228 Case2 0.1168 0.3165 0.5441 0.9447 0.5498 0.3964 608.24 0.2166 Proposed Case1 0.1198 0.31 0.5328 0.9904 0.5197 0.3611 600.13 0.2199 Case2 0.117 0.3151 0.6041 0.9725 0.5042 0.354 607.84 0.2192
Table IV. Best emission and corresponding fuel cost. Generator LP [16] MOSST [17] NSGA [4] Case1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Emission(ton/h) Cost ($/h) 0.40 0.45 0.55 0.40 0.55 0.50 0.1942 639.6 0.4095 0.4626 0.5426 0.3884 0.5427 0.5142 0.1942 644.11 0.4394 0.4511 0.5105 0.3871 0.5553 0.4905 0.1944 639.23 Case2 0.4113 0.4591 0.5117 0.3724 0.581 0.5304 0.1943 647.25 Proposed Case1 0.3915 0.47 0.5178 0.4003 0.5434 0.5111 0.1943 636.62 Case2 0.4087 0.4574 0.557 0.4095 0.5346 0.4976 0.1942 642.9
results for best fuel cost with corresponding emission and best emission with corresponding fuel cost, respectively, from a set of Pareto-optimal solutions obtained. In methods [16] and [17], test system was considered as lossless. To compare, case 1 simulations were done considering the system as lossless while case 2 simulations were done considering transmission losses, which is more realistic. In Table III, for case 1, best cost (per hour) obtained by References [16,17] and [4] are $606.31, $605.89, and $600.57, respectively, and corresponding emissions (ton/h) are 0.2233, 0.2222, and 0.2228, respectively. In this case best cost obtained by proposed method is $600.13 and corresponding emission is 0.2199, both are better than other methods. In case 2, best cost obtained by proposed method is little less than the method in Reference [4] but corresponding emission is little higher. In Table IV, for case 1, best emission (ton/h) obtained by References [16,17] and [4] are 0.1942, 0.1942, 0.1944, respectively, and corresponding costs (per hour) are $639.6, $644.11, and $639.23, respectively. For this case best emission (0.1943 ton/h) obtained by proposed method is very similar to other methods but corresponding cost ($636.62) is less compared to other methods. Same is true for case 2 also. This shows that proposed method can efciently explore the end Pareto-optimal solutions in case of multi-objective optimization. 7.5. Diversity preserving In multi-objective optimization, solution quality can not be judged only seeing the end solutions. Diversity among Pareto-optimal solutions is a very important issue. To show the effectiveness of the proposed diversity preserving technique, the method was compared with NSGA-II [18], SPEA2 [19], and OMOPSO [20]. Figures 5 and 6 show the Pareto fronts obtained by different methods. For IEEE 30
645 645
640
640
635
635
630
630
Cost ($/h)
625
Cost ($/h)
0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 0.215 0.22
625
620
620
615
615
610
610
605 0.19
605 0.19
0.195
0.2
0.205
0.21
0.215
0.22
Emission (ton/h)
Emission (ton/h)
(a) NSGAII
645 645 640 640
(b) SPEA2
635
635
630
630
Cost ($/h)
625
Cost ($/h)
0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 0.215
625
620
620
615
615
610
610
605 0.19
605 0.19
0.195
0.2
0.205
0.21
0.215
0.22
Emission (ton/h)
Emission (ton/h)
(c) OMOPSO
(d) Proposed
Figure 5. Pareto optimal solutions for IEEE 30 bus system.


6 6
7.25 7.24
x 10
7.34
x 10
7.32 7.23 7.3 7.22 Cost (Rs/h) 7.21 7.2 7.26 7.19 7.24 7.18 7.17 7.22 Cost (Rs/h) 4 4.5 5 5.5 Emission (ton/h) 6 6.5 7.28
3.5
4.5 Emission (ton/h)
(a) NSGAII
7.7 7.65 7.6 7.55 Cost (Rs/h) Cost (Rs/h) 7.5 7.45 7.4 7.35 7.3 7.25 7.2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Emission (ton/h) 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.18 2.5 3 7.43 x 10
6
(b) SPEA2
7.48
7.38
7.33
7.28
7.23
3.5
4 4.5 Emission (ton/h)
5.5
(c) OMOPSO
(d) Proposed
Figure 6. Pareto optimal solutions for IEEE 118 bus system.
bus system front size was taken as 20 and for IEEE 118 bus system it was taken as 50. For 118 bus system front is less uniform compared to 30 bus system because of higher nonlinearity. However, for both the systems Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by the proposed method are more uniformly distributed throughout the Pareto front compared to other methods.
7.6. OPF solutions Table V presents end Pareto-optimal solutions and best compromise solution obtained from a single run for the test systems with two competitive objectives cost and emission. From the simulation results it is clear that if the operator wants to minimize emission, cost of generation increases and vice versa.
Table V. End solutions in a single run. System 30 bus 118 bus min C min E compromise min C min E compromise Cost (C) (Rs/h) 545 556 594 248 551 050 7 926 112 8 404 232 8 364 959 Emission (E) (ton/h) 0.2469 0.2328 0.2450 6.8020 3.4157 3.4300
Table VI. Optimal setting of control variables for IEEE 30 bus system. Bus 1 2 5 8 11 13 Generation (MW) 115.19 69.58 25.04 26.74 27.18 26.33 Voltage mag. (p.u.) 1.0600 1.0267 0.9889 1.0107 1.0318 1.0279 Tr. 69 610 412 2827 Tap 1.0492 1.0056 1.0272 0.9695
However operator can also choose a compromise (somewhat higher cost and higher emission from their lowest optimum values) solution as well. For IEEE 30 bus system, 16 control variables (6 generator outputs + 6 generator voltages + 4 transformer taps) were optimized. Similarly, for IEEE 118 bus system 117 (54 + 54 + 9) variables were optimized. Control variables for the best compromise solutions are given in Tables VI and VII for IEEE 30 and 118 bus systems, respectively. Complete OPF solution for IEEE 30 bus system is given in Table VIII.
7.7. Computational efciency Computational efciency of the proposed method has been compared with NSGA-II [18], SPEA2 [19], and OMOPSO [20]. Computational complexity of NSGA-II is OMN 2 as in each iteration, it calculates set of solutions dominated by solution k as well as the set of solutions dominated the solution k. Where N is the number of solutions and M is number of objectives. Computational complexity of OMOPSO and proposed method is also OMN 2 as non-dominated sorting is required in both
Table VII. Optimal setting of control variables for IEEE 118 bus system. Bus Generation (MW) Voltage mag. (p.u.) Bus Generation (MW) Voltage mag. (p.u.) 1 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 19 24 25 26 27 31 32 34 36 40 42 46 49 54 55 56 59 61 62 22.19 80.17 60.24 46.31 110.05 151.62 0.00 92.87 70.47 49.28 200.61 64.71 54.75 79.18 39.15 82.88 87.69 68.69 37.97 69.33 119.68 143.68 72.05 75.74 71.99 124.52 97.08 1.0007 1.0431 1.0327 1.0600 1.0600 1.0376 1.0019 1.0157 1.0022 1.0600 1.0332 1.0382 1.0220 1.0272 1.0164 0.9860 0.9843 0.9500 1.0405 1.0462 1.0405 1.0366 1.0224 1.0269 0.9759 1.0166 1.0184 65 66 69 70 72 73 74 76 77 80 85 87 89 90 91 92 99 100 103 104 105 107 110 111 112 113 116 160.38 172.77 27.69 85.68 75.43 52.00 59.12 59.86 70.52 150.12 0.00 63.23 163.99 97.08 43.56 97.08 10.04 156.74 41.41 61.98 65.66 65.63 18.68 84.98 97.08 47.87 97.08 1.0561 1.0668 1.0177 1.0166 1.0134 1.0403 0.9923 0.9670 0.9768 0.9678 0.9923 1.0600 1.0229 0.9629 1.0125 1.0117 0.9655 1.0155 1.0284 1.0177 1.0181 1.0181 1.0415 1.0600 1.0453 1.0085 1.0180 Tr. 85 2625 3017 3837 6359 6461 6566 6869 8180 Tap 1.0506 1.0013 1.0105 1.0412 1.0778 1.1000 0.9403 0.9985 0.9757
Table VIII. Power ow solutions for IEEE 30-Bus test system. Bus code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Pg (MW) 115.19 69.58 0 0 25.04 0 0 26.74 0 0 27.18 0 26.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qg (MVAR) 43.39 27.64 0 0 13.95 0 0 27.87 0 0 19.71 0 21.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volt. (p.u.) 1.06 1.0267 1.0274 1.0191 0.9889 1.0118 0.9946 1.0107 0.9936 0.9904 1.0318 0.9991 1.0279 0.9846 0.9806 0.9872 0.9842 0.9712 0.9689 0.9735 0.9785 0.9795 0.973 0.9719 0.9834 0.9651 0.9997 1.0057 0.9793 0.9675 Delta (deg.) 0 1.76 3.59 4.38 7.84 5.25 6.86 5.39 6.08 8.25 2.92 7.18 5.12 8.22 8.39 7.93 8.39 9.12 9.34 9.13 8.79 8.78 8.99 9.41 9.65 10.1 9.5 5.68 10.79 11.72
Table IX. Comparison of OPF execution time. Test system NSGA-II [18] 30 bus 118 bus 1.136 53.14 Execution time (s) SPEA2 [19] 6.028 66.87 OMOPSO [20] 1.021 51.81 Proposed 0.849 40.08
approaches. Computational complexity of SPEA2 is OMN 2 logN as in each iteration it calculates near neighbors for each solution. Table IX illustrates a comparison of computational time to solve the OPF problem using different methods. The simulations were carried out using a P4 3.0 GHz, 512 MB RAM machine. Though computational complexities of NSGA-II, OMOPSO and proposed method are same, NSGA-II takes more time because PSO based approaches (OMOPSO and proposed method) converges quickly compared to GA (NSGA-II) based approach. OMOPSO approach takes little more time compared to proposed method because of incorporation of mutation operation in the PSO algorithm. SPEA2 takes largest computational time because in each iteration, it calculates inter-distance between all individuals.
8. CONCLUSIONS This paper proposes a optimal power ow technique with two competitive objectives, cost of generation, and emission of thermal plants. A multi-objective particle swarm optimization technique
with dynamic velocity controlling is used to solve this optimization problem. To maintain diversity among Pareto-optimal solutions a diversity preserving technique is proposed. Simulation results show that PSO with dynamic velocity control ensure good convergence and explores better solutions than PSO with Constriction Factor Approach (CFA). Simulation results also show that proposed method is computationally efcient and generates a set of uniformly distributed set of Pareto-optimal solutions in single run. Fuzzy approach is useful in choosing the best compromise solution from the set of Pareto-optimal solutions. This OPF method can optimize any number of objectives and may be helpful to the system operators in choosing judicious decision in running the system efciently.
9. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS NG Pgi Pi;min Pdi Qdi Pdio Qdio Vi di Df ngi Psetik Pmaxik Pminik Rik crwd xij;t vij;t mi mk Number of generator. Active power generation of ith generator. Minimum generation limit of ith generator. Active power load at bus i. Reactive power load at bus i. Active power load at bus i for nominal voltage and frequency. Reactive power load at bus i for nominal voltage and frequency. Voltage magnitude of ith bus. Voltage phase angle of ith bus. Change in voltage magnitude. Number of generator at bus i. Set active power of kth generator unit at bus i. Maximum generation of kth generator unit at bus i. Minimum generation of kth generator unit at bus i. Regulation constant of kth generator unit at bus i. Crowding distance. Position of jth element of particle i at generation t. Velocity of jth element of particle i at generation t. Fuzzy membership value of objective i. Fuzzy membership value of non-dominated solution k.
APPENDIX A Table X Generators cost coefcients.

Unit (MW) 25 2650 51100 101200 201250 251300 301350 351400 401500 >500 p (Rs/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q (Rs/MWh) 2025 1875 1800 1650 1575 1575 1500 1500 1200 1200 r (Rs/MW2h) 1.50 1.425 1.35 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.35 1.25 1.50 1.00 e 104 (Rs/h) 0.0 1.2 2.4 3.24 3.0 3.6 3.35 3.85 4.0 4.4 f (1/MW) 0.0 0.126 0.063 0.047 0.05 0.042 0.045 0.039 0.038 0.034
Table XI Generators emission coefcients.

Unit (MW) 30 3150 51100 101200 201300 >300 a (lb/h) 6.131 4.258 5.326 4.258 2.543 4.091 b (lb/MWh) 5.555 5.094 3.550 5.094 6.047 5.554 g (lb/MW2h) 5.151 4.586 3.380 4.586 5.638 6.490 j 105 (lb/h) 1 1 2 1 5 2 l (1/MW) 6.667 8.000 2.000 8.000 3.333 2.857
REFERENCES 1. Arya LD, Choube SC, Kothari DP. Emission constrained secure economic dispatch. International Journal of Electric Power Energy Systems 1997; 19(4):279285. 2. Rosehart WD, Canizares CA, Quintana VH. Multiobjective optimal power ows to evaluate voltage security costs in power networks. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 2003; 18(2):578587. 3. Yokoyama R, Bae SH, Morita T, Sasaki H. Multiobjective optimal generation dispatch based on probability security criteria. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 1988; 3(1):317324. 4. Abido MA. A novel multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for environmental/economic power dispatch. Electric Power Systems Research 2003; 65(1):7181. 5. Ramesh VC, Li X. A fuzzy multiobjective approach to contingency constrained opf. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 1997; 12(3):13481354. 6. Coello CA. An updated survey of ga-based multiobjective optimization techniques. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 2000; 32(2):109143. 7. Walters DC, Sheble GB. Genetic algorithm solution of economic dispatch with valve point loading. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 1993; 8(3):13251332. 8. Abido MA. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for electric power dispatch problem. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 2006; 10(3):315329. 9. Hazra J, Sinha AK. A new power ow model incorporating effects of automatic controllers. WSEAS Transactions on Power Systems 2007; 8(2):202207. 10. Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE Intlernational Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, 1995; 19421948. 11. Clerc M, Kennedy J. The particle swarm - explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 2002; 6(1):5873. 12. Mostaghim S, Teich J. Strategies for nding good local guides in multi-objective particle swarm optimization (mopso). Proceedings of IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, 2003; 2633. 13. Alsac O, Stott B. Optimal load ow with steady-state security. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus Systems 1974; PAS-93(3):745751. 14. http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/ 15. Hazra J, Sinha AK. Congestion management using multiobjective particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 2007; 22(4):17261734. 16. Farag A, Al-Baiyat S, Cheng TC. Economic load dispatch multiobjective optimization procedures using linear programming techniques. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 1995; 10(2):731738. 17. Das DB, Patvardhan C. New multi-objective stochastic search technique for economic load dispatch. IEE Proceedings of General Transmission Distribution 1998; 145(6):747752. 18. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 2002; 6(2):182197. 19. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele T. SPE A2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm. Technical Report 103, Swiss Federal Institute of Tehnology (ETH) Zurich, Gloriastrasse 35, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland Sept 2001. 20. Sierra MR, Coello Coello CA. Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3410/2005, Ch. Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and e-dominance. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, 2005; 505519.

A Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Particle Swarm Optimization

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Particle Swarm Optimization

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EUROPEAN TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL POWER Euro. Trans. Electr. Power (2010) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

A multi-objective optimal power ow using particle swarm optimization

multi-objective optimization; pareto-optimality; particle swarm optimization; optimal power ow

J. HAZRA AND A. K. SINHA