Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al.

, An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Electric Power Systems Research
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ epsr
An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution
Y. Pablo O nate, Juan M. Ramirez

, Carlos A. Coello Coello

Cinvestav Unidad Guadalajara, Av. Cientica 1145, Col. El Bajio, Zapopan, Jal., 45015, Mexico
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 March 2008
Received in revised form 26 May 2008
Accepted 9 March 2009
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Optimal power ow
Particle swarm optimizer
Security constraints
Evolutionary computation
a b s t r a c t
This paper is aimed at the solution of the optimal power ow (OPF) problem with embedded security
constraints (OPF-SC) by the particle swarmoptimizer. The major objective is to minimize the overall oper-
ating cost while satisfying the power ow equations, system security, and equipment operating limits.
The overall operating cost is composed by the generation cost, transmission cost, and the consumer bene-
t. A modication of the conventional particle swarmoptimizer (PSO) has been used as the optimization
tool, which uses reconstruction operators and dynamic penalization for handling constraints. The recon-
struction operators allow the increase of the number of particles within the feasible region. The power
equations mismatch, loss active power transmission, and voltages are calculated by the NewtonRaphson
method. To demonstrate its robustness, the proposed algorithm was tested on systems from the open
literature. Several cases have been studied to test and validate the proposed approach.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The OPF objective is to meet the required demand at min-
imum production cost, satisfying units and systems operating
constraints, by adjusting the power system control variables [13].
The power systemmust be capable of withstanding the loss of some
or several transmission lines, transformers or generators, guaran-
teeing its security; suchevents are oftentermedprobable or credible
contingencies. Different security criteria have been used to ensure
sufcient securitymargins. Oneof themis theN1criterion, widely
used nowadays. To determine the credible contingencies, in this
paper a contingency ranking is used [4].
The problem of the two precedent paragraphs, when they are
put together, is termed the optimal power ow with security con-
straints (OPF-SC). Through an optimal power ow formulation, a
methodfor computingthe optimal pre- andpost-contingencyoper-
ating points is presented. Likewise, constraints in generating units
limits, minimum and maximum up- and down-time, slope-down
and slope-up, a voltage prole improved and coupling constraints
between the pre- and the post-contingency states have been taken
into account.
Nowadays, with the electrical power industry deregulation, the
transmission system can be considered as an independent trans-
mission company that provides open access to all participants.
Any pricing scheme should compensate transmission companies
fairly for providing transmission services and allocate entire trans-

Corresponding author. Fax: +52 33 3777 3609.

E-mail addresses: jramirez@gdl.cinvestav.mx (J.M. Ramirez),
ccoello@cs.cinvestav.mx (C.A. Coello Coello).
missions costs among all users. Different methods to allocate
transmission costs among network users have been applied world-
wide [5,6]. This paper employs a transmissionpricing scheme using
a power owtracing method [79] to estimate the actual contribu-
tion of generators to each ow in the links.
Some conventional optimization techniques have been utilized
for solving the OPF-SC, for instance: linear programming, sequen-
tial quadratic programming, generalized reduced gradient method,
and Newton methods [13]. Although some of these techniques
have good convergences characteristics, some of their major draw-
backs are related to their convergence to local solution instead of
global ones, if the initial guess is located within a local solution
neighborhood. Thetheoretical assumptions behindsuchalgorithms
maybenot suitablefor theOPF-SCformulation. Optimizationmeth-
ods such as simulated annealing (SA), evolutionary programming
(EP), genetic algorithms (GA) and particle swarm optimizer (PSO)
havebeenemployedtoovercomesuchdrawbacks. Recent strategies
have begun to emerge as a very promising alternative to overcome
common difculties of the above-mentioned algorithms [1012].
Important contributions on power systems optimization applica-
tions have been presented in [1322].
In [23], PSO has been used to solve the OPF. Additionally, in
[24,25] a modied PSO, with improved convergence characteris-
tics, is applied to the same aim. Three types of PSO algorithms are
proposed in [26,27], all of which have been applied to solve opti-
mization problems related to reactive power and voltage control.
In this paper, for solving the OPF-SC, a particle swarmoptimizer
with reconstruction operators (PSO-RO) is proposed. For handling
constraints, such reconstruction operators plus an external penal-
ization are adopted. The reconstruction operators allow that all
particles represent a possible solution, satisfying the units oper-
0378-7796/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
2 Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx
ating constraints, and increasing the number of particles able to
search for optimal solution, thus improving the achieved solution
quality.
2. Particle swarm optimizer summary
The PSO earliest version was intended to handle only nonlin-
ear continuous optimization problems [29]. However, its further
development elevated its capabilities for handling a wide class of
complex optimization problems [2831]. A PSO algorithm consists
of a population continuously updating the searching space knowl-
edge. This population is formed by individuals, where each one
represents a possible solution and can be modelled as a particle
that moves through the hyperspace. The position of each particle is
determined by the vector x
i
R
n
and its movement by the particles
velocity v
i
R
n
x
iter+1
i
= x
iter
i
+ v
iter+1
i
(1)
The information available for each individual is based on both
its own experience and the knowledge of the performance of other
individuals in its neighborhood. Since the relative importance of
these two factors can vary, it is reasonable to apply randomweights
to each part, and therefore the velocity is determined by
v
iter+1
i
= w v
iter
i
+C
1
rand() (

pbest
i
x
i
) . . .
+C
2
Rand() (

gbest
i
x
i
) (2)
where iter is the current iteration; C
1
and C
2
are two positive learn-
ing factors; rand() and Rand() are two randomly generated values
within [0,1]; w is known as the inertia weight, and it plays the role
of balancing the global and local searchperformed by the algorithm
[32,33].
3. Objective function
The OPF-SC goal is to optimize an objective function subject to
equality and inequality constraints. The optimization problem is
formulated as follows:
MinF
obj
(u, y) (3)
subject to
g(u, y) = 0 (4)
h
min
h(u, y) h
max
(5)
where g(,) represents the equality constraints set; h(,) is the
inequality constraints set; uare the state variables; y represent both
integer and continuous control variables.
3.1. Objective function
In this paper, the minimization of the total cost includes the pre-
contingency cost (superscript 0) besides each credible contingency
cost (superscript k). Thus, the objective function is constituted by
three terms: (i) the generating costs, (ii) the transmission costs, and
(iii) the consumer benet [34]
F
obj
= min

C
0
+
K

k=1
C
k

(6)
C
0
=
NG

i=1
(U
0
i
f (P
0
Gi
) +SUC
i
) +TC
0
(FLW
0
mn
)
NLoad

j=1
B(P
Loadj
) (7)
C
k
=
NG

i=1
(U
k
i
f (P
k
Gi
) +SUC
i
) +TC
k
(FLW
k
mn
)
NLoad

j=1
(B(P
k
Loadj
)
D(P
k
Loadj
, P
0
Loadj
)) (8)
where Kis the total number of credible contingencies; C
0
represents
the base case operating cost; U
0
i
i-th units pre-contingency state,
1-ON, 0-OFF, NG is the total number of available generators; f (P
0
Gi
)
i-th generators function cost at time t; P
0
Gi
active power supplied by
the i-thgenerator at the pre-contingency state, SUC
i
i-thgenerators
start-up cost; TC
0
() pre-contingency transmission cost, (9) NLoad
total number of load buses, B(P
Loadj
) is the consumer benet curve
for j-thloadat timet; P
Loadj
pre-contingencyactivepower consump-
tion at the j-th load; C
k
credible contingencies cost; D() represents
the load interruption cost; P
k
post-contingency active power con-
sumptionat thej-thload; TC
k
() post-contingencytransmissioncost,
dened as (9)
TC =
M

m=1
c
m
(MW
gi,m
)L
m
MW
gi,m
(9)
where, M lines set; c
m
() cost per MW per unit length of line m;
L
m
length of line m in miles; MW
gi,m
ow in line m, due to the i-th
generator.
3.2. Constraints
In the following, different constraints included in the OPF-SC
formulation are detailed.
3.2.1. Equality constraints at the pre- and post-contingency states
This is the set of nonlinear power balance equations that govern
the steady-state power ow formulation, both at pre- and post-
contingency state, dened as follows:
0 =
NG

i=1
P
0
Gi

NLoad

j=1
(P
0
Loadj
) P
0
Loss
(10)
0 =
NG

i=1
Q
0
Gi

NLoad

j=1
Q
0
Loadj
Q
0
Loss
(11)
0 =
NG

i=1
P
k
Gi

NLoad

j=1
P
k
Loadj
P
0
Loss
, for k = 1, 2, . . . , K (12)
0 =
NG

i=1
Q
k
Gi,t

NLoad

j=1
Q
k
Loadj,t
Q
k
Loss t
, for k = 1, 2, . . . , K (13)
where P
Loss
represents the total active power losses, Q
Loss
are the
total reactive power ones, and K is the total number of credible
contingencies.
3.2.2. Inequality constraints at the pre- and post-contingency
states
This is the set of continuous and discrete constraints represent-
ing the systems operational and security limits as bounds.
(i) The active power generated by each unit must satisfy the
maximum and minimum operating limits, both for pre- and
post-contingency states.
P
Gi MIN
P
0
Gi
P
Gi MAX
(14)
P
Gi MIN
P
k
Gi
P
Gi MAX
(15)
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx 3
Fig. 1. Proportional sharing concept.
(ii) Voltage magnitudes at each load bus must be close enough to
the reference voltage
min

V
ref
V
j

(16)
where V
ref
is the reference voltage magnitude, V
j
is the voltage
magnitude at the j-th load bus.
(iii) The active power ow through each branch of the network
must satisfy the security limits
|FLOW
0
ij
| FLOW
0
ij MAX
, i, j, i / = j (17)
|FLOW
k
ij
| FLOW
k
ij MAX
, i, j, i / = j (18)
where FLOW
0
ij MAX
, FLOW
k
ij MAX
, represent the maximumactive
power that should ow through the branch connecting
the buses i j, during the pre-contingency and each post-
contingency state, respectively.
4. Transmission cost allocation
To calculate the transmission cost allocation, the average partic-
ipation factor (APF) method [5,8,9] has been used. It is based on a
general transportation problemof howthe ows are distributed on
a meshed network. The only requirement is related to the Kirch-
hoffs rst law fulllment.
Once the power ow scenario is determined, the main idea of
this methodology is to determine the agents (generator and loads)
participationfactor inthe owinlinks. Inthis sense, it will be possi-
ble to trace the owof electricity froma generator to the loadbuses.
The principle adopted to trace these ows is the proportional shar-
ingprinciple, schematizedinFig. 1. Theassumptionmadeis that the
bus is a perfect mixer of all incoming ows, so that it is impossible
to determine which particular inowing electron goes into which
particular outgoing line. It may be assumed that each element ow
leaving the i-th bus can be decomposed into M shares, where M is
the number of incoming ows (generator and elements injecting
power into bus i). The amount of such shares has the same propor-
tion that the incoming ows in the total power injected into bus i
[5,8].
5. Proposed solution
The proposed methodology runs as follows:

STEP 1: randomly generated initial population,

STEP2: for eachparticle, the reconstructionoperators are applied,

STEP 3: the NewtonRaphson routine is applied to each particle,

STEP 4: tness function evaluation,

Fig. 2. Particle representation.

STEP 5: compare particles tness function and determine pbest

and gbest,

STEP 6: change of particles velocity and position according to (1)

and (2)

STEP 7: go to step 2 until a criterion is met (maximum number of

generations)

Initial population.
In this paper, a particle is composed by continuous and dis-
crete control variables. The continuous ones include the generators
active power output and the loads active power; the discrete
variables are associated with the transformers-tap setting and var-
injection values of the switched shunt capacitors/reactors, Fig. 2.
The population is constituted by K+1 matrices, one for the base
case and one for each of the K credible contingencies (subpopula-
tions) of dimension (NG+ND) NIND; where K represents the total
number of accounted contingencies; NG is the number of continu-
ous variables; ND is the number of discrete variables; NIND is the
number of particles.
For each scenario (pre- and post-contingency states), the initial
active power is a percentile and is randomly allocated among the
NG available thermal units, such that the load is satised (19)
P
n
Gi
=
rand(NG)

rand(NG)
Nload

j=1
P
LOADj
for n = 0, 1, . . . , K (19)
where, rand(NG) represents a vector of size NG randomly generated
within the interval [0,1].
The transformer-tap setting and var-injection values of the
switched shunt capacitor/reactor (discrete variable) are randomly
generated between upper and lower limits. An operator is included
to ensure that each discrete variable is rounded to its nearest deci-
mal integer value that represents the physical operating constraint
of a given variable.
round(random[ST
min
i
, ST
max
i
], ) (20)
where represents the most signicant decimal.
5.1. Reconstruction operators
In this paper, the reconstruction operators have been used to
satisfy the units constraints. Taking into account the inequalities
within a conventional formulation, by using penalty functions, for
instance, results in an execution where it is very likely to make
wrong decisions, due to the use of excessively high penalty factors.
Altogether, the PSO and the operators, accomplish such handling
in a more efcient way, limiting the use of penalization. That is,
such mechanisms control that each continuous variable fullls the
generation limits, load and discrete variable limits for the pre- and
post-contingencies states. For each state the following reconstruc-
tion operators have been applied.
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
4 Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx
5.2. Control variables operating limits
This operator is dened as
P

Gi
=

P
Gi MAX
if P
G,i
> P
Gi MAX
P
Gi
if P
G,i MIN
< P
Gi
< P
G,i MAX
P
Gi MIN
if P
Gi MIN
< P
Gi
P
Gi MIN
0 otherwise
(21)
Theoperator, besides satisfyingtheactivepower generationlim-
its, is useful for avoiding the use of additional variables in order to
determine the units state; thus, for those units in which the active
power is below a predened percentage, the off state is chosen
(P
Gi
=0). Likewise,
P

k
Load,j
=

P
0
Load,j
if P
k
Load,j
> P
0
Load,j
P
0
Load,j

Load,j
if P
k
Load,j
< P
0
Load,j

Load,j
P
k
Load,j
otherwise
, k = 0, 1, . . . , K and j = 1, 2, . . . , ND (22)
ST

k
j
=

u
max
j
if ST
j
> u
max
j
u
min
j
if ST
j
< u
min
j
ST
j
otherwise
, k = 0, 1, . . . , K and j = 1, 2, . . . , ND (23)
where

Load,j
is the maximum allowed load interruption at bus-j.
5.3. Handling constraints for load balance
After the execution of the precedent operation, the total active
power assigned to the thermal units is not necessarily equal to
the demanded load. Thus, a re-dispatch is required for taking into
account the available units. Such re-dispatch must deal with con-
straints [34].
5.4. NewtonRaphson load ow
Once the reconstruction operators have been applied and
the control variables values are determined, for each particle a
load ow run is performed. Such ow run allows evaluating the
branches active power owandthe total losses, whichare assigned
to the slack bus.
5.5. Fitness function
To handle the active power ow limits and voltage constraints,
the objective function penalization is used. By this technique, the
tness function is composed by the objective function (6) plus
penalty terms for particles violating some power ow and/or volt-
age constraint. Such tness function can be expressed as follows:
F
fit
i
= F
obj
i
+Cte(iter)
N OFLW

j=1
OverFlow
j
+F
obj
i
NLoad

j=1
|V
ref
V|,
i = 1, . . . , NIND (24)
where, N OFLWrepresents the total number of lines with overow;
NIND is the number of individuals; OverFlow
j,t
is dened as in (25).
abs(FLOW
i,j MAX
FLOW
i,j
) (25)
FLOW
i,j MAX
, is the maximumallowable owacross the line con-
nectingbuses i j; Cte(iter) is adynamicallymodiedpenaltyvalue:
Cte(iter) = 300

iter, this one, allows an increasing penalization

throughout generations.
5.6. Updating
The new position and velocities can be evaluated by (1) and (2).
6. Test results
The proposed algorithm was implemented in Matlab, and the
IEEE NewEngland test systemis employed to validate its potential.
The test system consists of ten thermal units, 39 buses, 46 trans-
mission lines and tap-changing transformers, feeding a total load of
6097.5MW and 1409 MVAR. A detailed description of the systems
data is available in [35]. The operating range of all transformers
is set between [0.9, 1.1] with a discrete step size equal to 0.01. A
quadratic fuel cost function is used, and its coefcients are dis-
playedinTable 1. Inthis paper, the transmissioncosts are accounted
as a portion of the generating ones; their proportions are displayed
in Table 2.
TC
gi,m
= (a
gi
MW
2
gi,m
+b
gi
MW
gi,m
+c
gi
) P
m
(26)
Three cases are analyzed

Case 1: An OPF-SC neglecting transmission costs while improving

the voltage prole.

Case 2: Both the transmission costs and voltage prole improve-

ment are considered within the objective function and tness
function, respectively.

Case 3: In the previous cases, the tap-changing transformers are

not included as control variables; in this case, these ones are
included as such ones. In all cases, the tripping of line 2627 is
considered as the contingency.
To demonstrate the consistency and robustness of the devel-
opedalgorithm, 20independent runs are conductedfor eachcase to
count for the number of times in which the optimal or near optimal
solutionis reached; different stoppingcriteria are considered(max-
imumiterations). Results and computational times are exhibited in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows that with 30 iterations, the best solution is as
good as with 50 iterations, although the standard deviation in the
latter case is better. The better results obtained using the PSO-RO
are shown in Table 4. The inclusion of a penalization term into
the objective function has allowed the voltage prole improve-
ment. The total deviation voltage is reduced from 1.1170p.u. (case
1) to 0.9246p.u. (case 2), and to 0.5905p.u (case 3) for the pre-
Table 1
Fuel cost coefcients.
Bus a
i
($/MW
2
) b
i
($/MW) c
i
($)
30 0.0193 6.9 0
31 0.0111 3.7 0
32 0.0104 2.8 0
33 0.0088 4.7 0
34 0.0128 2.8 0
35 0.0094 3.7 0
36 0.0099 4.8 0
37 0.0113 3.6 0
38 0.0071 3.7 0
39 0.0064 3.9 0
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx 5
Table 2
Coefcients of proportion (New England power system).
Transmission cost coefcients (Pm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
L
12
L
118
L
23
L
27
L
28
L
213
L
226
L
313
L
48
L
412
L
56
L
67
L
611
L
618
L
619
L
621
0.033 0.040 0.040 0.056 0.042 0.058 0.037 0.042 0.046 0.053 0.047 0.053 0.048 0.047 0.056 0.061
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
L
78
L
79
L
812
L
910
L
1012
L
1019
L
1020
L
1022
L
1125
L
1126
L
1214
L
1215
L
1314
L
1315
L
1316
L
14152
0.043 0.036 0.054 0.060 0.058 0.049 0.060 0.042 0.046 0.064 0.049 0.051 0.037 0.054 0.055 0.058
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
L
1516
L
1617
L
1620
L
1718
L
1721
L
1923
L
1924
L
1925
L
2021
L
2022
L
2124
L
2223
L
2224
L
2325
0.055 0.045 0.065 0.050 0.060 0.047 0.049 0.057 0.052 0.042 0.042 0.046 0.054 0.054
Table 3
Statistical data for cases 13.
Gener NIND Objective function Standart deviation Average time (seg)
Mean Best Worst
CASE
1
20 36 123970.0 123,420 124,580 373.67 290
30 36 123518.7 122,990 124,410 391.44 436
50 36 123223.9 122,918 123,810 216.33 610
CASE
2
20 36 217804.7 216,130 219,400 865.11 406
30 36 216474.7 215,860 218,120 616.93 707
50 36 216140.7 215,660 216,620 323.05 960
CASE
3
30 36 190090.7 176,620 207,440 9552.04 554
50 36 184352.4 174,940 188,810 3847.3 875
Table 4
Optimization results for the New England power system.
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3
PG [MW]
pre-cont 2627 out pre-cont 26-27 out pre-cont 26-27 out
239.83 250.98 243.69 229.53 393.03 393.03
611.28 587.86 468.68 509.26 643.10 643.10
698.20 629.00 641.35 530.67 739.50 739.50
750.00 683.98 750.00 703.48 708.32 708.32
439.58 416.80 650.00 551.24 175.51 175.51
653.45 750.00 750.00 750.00 713.32 713.32
531.51 549.67 750.00 750.00 624.03 624.03
435.64 452.13 447.26 513.79 593.18 593.18
783.20 900.00 889.50 900.00 641.95 641.95
994.87 939.37 580.52 739.23 908.59 908.59
Position taps
1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 0.91 1.00
1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.10 1.10
1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.10 1.10
1.006 1.006 1.006 1.006 1.04 0.95
1.006 1.006 1.006 1.006 0.99 1.09
1.060 1.060 1.060 1.060 1.09 1.10
1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.09 1.04
1.009 1.009 1.009 1.009 1.00 1.10
1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 0.94 0.96
1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.02 0.90
1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 0.97 0.97
Loss active power
40.06 62.29 73.51 79.70 43.03 48.59
Total deviation voltage (p. u.)
1.1170 0.9738 0.9246 0.9058 0.5905 0.5885
Total transmition cost ($)
6374.50 5895.90 5473.60 5044.90
Objective function ($)
61339.0 61579.0 63209.0 62398.0 63,564 63,552
Fitness function
122918.0 215,660 174,940
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
6 Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx
contingency state, and from0.9738 p.u. (case 1) to 0.9058p.u. (case
2), and to 0.5885p.u. (case 3) for the post-contingency state.
The routines utilizedinthese studies are implementedinMatlab
7.0 on a personal computer with a Pentium 4 processor, running at
2.99GHz and with 1GB of RAM.
6.1. Convergence
Now PSO has been around for over 10 years. Already, it is
being researched and utilized in over a dozen countries. And some
researchers found that the stochastic nature of the particle swarm
optimizer makes it more difcult to prove (or disprove) like global
convergence. Solis and Wets [36] have studied the convergence of
stochastic search algorithms, most notably that of pure random
search algorithms, providing criteria under which algorithms can
be considered to be global search algorithms, or merely local search
algorithms. Van den Bergh [37] used their denitions extensively
in the study of the convergence characteristics of the PSO and the
guaranteed convergence PSO (GCPSO), he proved the PSO is not
even guaranteed to be local extrema, and GCPSO can converge on a
local extremum.
It has been pointed out that PSOusually suffers frompremature
convergence, tending to get stuck in local optima when strongly
multi-modal problems are being optimized [38]. Various attempts
have been made to improve the performance of basic PSO, which
can be classied here as follows:
(i) tuning the parameters inthe velocity andpositionupdate equa-
tions of PSO;
(ii) designing different population topologies;
(iii) combining PSO with other search techniques;
(iv) incorporating bio-inspired mechanisms into the basic PSO;
(v) utilizing multi-population scheme instead of single population
of the basic PSO.
For instance, in [39], the algorithm referred to as PSOOFT,
optimal foraging theory (OFT) with the reproduction mechanism
being the main responsible for the improvement of convergence
rate, while the patch choice scheme clearly helped the algorithm
escape local minima and yield promising results.
Another idea is the dynamic PSO (DPSO), which try to keep the
particles from converging at a certain local extremum at the early
stage of the optimization based on the theory of statistical mechan-
ics and information theory.
Likewise, recent strategies havebeguntoemergeas verypromis-
ing alternatives [1012].
7. Conclusions
This paper investigates the applicability of the PSO-RO in solv-
ing the OPF-SC problem including transmission costs. Moreover,
inequality constraints have been added in the formulation in order
to improve the voltage prole. Traditionally, PSO handles con-
straints by the objective function penalization. The reconstruction
operators are an alternative mechanism for managing the units
operative constraints, while particles violating some power ow
or bus voltage are penalized. The use of reconstruction operators
allows increasing the number of suitable particles in the search-
ing space. Thus, the dependency of the heuristic algorithms on the
appropriate denition of the penalization terms is reduced.
The proposed methodology is able to take into account feasible
and satisfactory solutions for both the base case and for a set of
credible contingencies. In case that the power system is capable of
getting aheadfromthe pre-contingency state to a post-contingency
state, generation and branches operative constraints are satised.
The PSO-RO is able to deal with mixed type control variables, so
that the OPF-SC solution assures an improved voltage prole.
References
[1] J.A. Momoh, R. Adapa, M.E. El-Hawary, A review of selected optimal power
owliterature to1993. Nonlinear andquadratic programming approaches, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems 14 (February (1)) (1999) 96104.
[2] A.L. Costa, A. Simes Costa, Energy and ancillary service dispatch through
dynamic optimal power ow, Electric Power Systems Research 77 (June (8))
(2007) 10471055.
[3] J. Martnez-Crespo, J. Usaola, J.L. Fernndez, Optimal security-constrained
power scheduling by Benders decomposition, Electric Power Systems Research
77 (May (7)) (2007) 739753.
[4] J. AllenWood, B.F. Wollenberg, Power GenerationOperationand Control, Wiley,
1996.
[5] M. Shahidehpour, H. Yamin, Z. Li, Market Operation in Electric Power Systems,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, USA, 2002.
[6] M. Junqueira, L.C. Da Costa, L.A. Barroso, G.C. Olivera, L.M. Thom, M.V. Pereira,
An AumannShapley approach to allocate transmission service cost among
network users in electricity markets, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 22
(November (4)) (2007) 15321546.
[7] H.R. Rudnick, R. Palma, J.E. Fernandez, Marginal pricing and supplement cost
allocation in transmission open access, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 10
(May (2)) (1995) 11251142.
[8] J. Bialek, Tracing the ow of electricity, IEE Proceedings Generation Transmis-
sion and Distribution 143 (July (4)) (1996) 313320.
[9] D. Kirschen, R. Allan, G. Strbac, Contribution of individual generations to loads
and ows, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 12 (February (1)) (1997) 52
60.
[10] M. Varadarajan, K.S. Swarup, Network loss minimization with voltage secu-
rity using differential evolution, Electric Power Systems Research 78 (May (5))
(2008) 815823.
[11] M.K. Kim, D. Hur, J.K. Park, Determination of available transfer capabil-
ity using multi-objective contingency constrained optimal power ow with
post-contingency corrective rescheduling, Electrical Engineering 90 (April (4))
(2008) 243253.
[12] C. Thitithamrongchai, B. Eua-Arporn, Security-constrainedoptimal power ow:
a parallel self-adaptive differential evolution approach, Electric Power Compo-
nents and Systems 36 (March (3)) (2008) 280298.
[13] M. Geidl, G. Andersson, Optimal power ow of multiple energy carriers, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems 22 (February (1)) (2007) 145155.
[14] Codruta Roman, WilliamRosehart, Complementarity model for load tap chang-
ing transformers in stability based OPF problem, Electric Power Systems
Research 76 (April (6/7)) (2006) 592599.
[15] W. Shao, V. Vittal, LP-based OPF for corrective FACTS control to relieve over-
loads and voltage violations, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21 (4) (2006)
18321839.
[16] M. Fu Yong, Shahidehpour, L. Zuyi, AC contingency dispatch based on security-
constrained unit commitment, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21 (May
(2)) (2006) 897908.
[17] F. Milano, C.A. Canizares, A.J. Conejo, Sensitivity-based security-constrained
OPF market clearing model, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20 (4) (2005)
20512060.
[18] W. Rosehart, C. Roman, A. Schellenberg, Optimal power owwith complemen-
tarity constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20 (May (2)) (2005)
813822.
[19] T.K. Hahn, M.K. Kim, D. Hur, J.-K. Park, Y.T. Yoon, Evaluation of available transfer
capability using fuzzy multi-objective contingency-constrained optimal power
ow, Electric Power Systems Research 78 (May (5)) (2008) 873882.
[20] W. Rosehart, C.A. Canizares, V.H. Quintana, Multiobjective optimal power ows
to evaluate voltage security costs in power networks, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems 18 (May (2)) (2003) 578587.
[21] W. Rosehart, C.A. Canizares, V.H. Quintana, Effect of detailed power system
models in traditional and voltage-stability-constrained optimal power-ow
problems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 18 (February (1)) (2003) 2735.
[22] F. Capitanescu, M. Glavic, D. Ernst, L. Wehenkel, Interior-point based algo-
rithms for the solutionof optimal power owproblems, Electric Power Systems
Research 77 (April (5/6)) (2007) 508517.
[23] M.A. Abido, Optimal power ow using particle swarm optimization, Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 24 (October (7)) (2002)
563571.
[24] B. Zhao, C.X. Guo, Y.J. Cao, Improved particle swarm optimization algorithm
for OPF problem, IEEE/PES Power System Conference and Exposition (2004)
233238.
[25] S. He, J.Y. Wen, E. Prempain, Q. Wu, H. Fitch, S. Mann, An improved particle
swarmoptimizationfor optimal power ow, International ConferenceonPower
System Technology 2 (2004) 16331637.
[26] J.G. Vlachogiannis, K.Y. Lee, A comparative study on particle swarm optimiza-
tion for optimal steady-state performance of power systems, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems 21 (4) (2006) 17181728.
[27] J.G. Vlachogiannis, K.Y. Lee, Coordinated aggregation particle swarm optimiza-
tion applied in reactive power and voltage control, paper 06GM0780, IEEE PES
General Meeting, Montreal, Canada, June 1822, 2006.
Please cite this article in press as: Y. Pablo O nate, et al., An optimal power ow plus transmission costs solution, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2009.03.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
EPSR-2851; No. of Pages 7
Y. Pablo Onate et al. / Electric Power Systems Research xxx (2009) xxxxxx 7
[28] R.C. Eberhart, J. Kennedy, Anewoptimizer using particle swarmtheory, in: Proc.
SixthInternational SymposiumonMicro Machine andHumanScience (Nagoya,
Japan), IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, 1995, pp. 3943.
[29] J. Kennedy, R.C. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in: Proc. IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Neural Networks (Perth, Australia), IEEE Service Center,
Piscataway, NJ, 1995, pp. 19421948, p. IV.
[30] H. Xiaohui, S. Yuhui, R.C. Eberhart, Recent advances in particle swarm, in: IEEE
Proceedings of 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 1, June 1923,
2004, pp. 9097.
[31] Y. del Valle, G.K. Venayagamoorthy, S. Mohagheghi, J.C. Hernandez, R.G. Harley,
Particle swarmoptimization. Basic concepts, variants andapplications inpower
systems, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 12 (April (2)) (2008)
171195.
[32] Y.H. Shi, R.C. Eberhart, Parameter selection in particle swarm optimizer, in:
Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, San Diego, March, 1998, pp.
19451950.
[33] Y.H. Shi, R.C. Eberhart, A modied particle swarm optimizer, in: IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, Alaska, May 49,
1998, pp. 6973.
[34] P.E. O nate, J.M. Ramirez, C.A. Coello, Optimal power ow subject to security
constraints withparticle swarmoptimiser, IEEE Transactions onPower Systems
23 (February (1)) (2008) 3340.
[35] M.A. Pai, Energy Function Analysis for Power SystemStability, Kluwer, Norwell,
MA, 1989.
[36] F. Solis, R. Wets, Minimization by random search techniques, Mathematics of
Operations Research 6 (11) (1981) 1930.
[37] F. Van den Bergh, An Analysis of Particle Swam Optimizers, PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Pretoria, 2000.
[38] M. Clerc, J. Kennedy, The particle swarmexplosion, stability, and convergence
in a multidimensional complex space, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Com-
putation 6 (1) (2002) 5873.
[39] B. Niu, Y. Zhu, K. Hu, S. Li, X. He, A Novel Particle Swarm Optimizer Using Opti-
mal Foraging Theory, ICIC 2006, LNBI 4115, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg,
2006, pp. 6171.