multi objetive transient stability constraints

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 21

multi objetive transient stability constraints

© All Rights Reserved

- 1) Genetic Algorithm
- Three_winding_transformer.pdf
- DK5739_CH13
- Albers - Types of Functional Relationships...
- An Optimal More-for-Less Solution of Mixed Constraints Intuitionistic Fuzzy Transportation Problems
- A STUDY ON OPTIMIZATION OF SHIP HULL FORM BASED ON NEURO-RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD (NRSM)
- Parallel Processing (Elective)
- Gaber Cairo
- EGH+00
- operating room scheduliing
- 51060242
- 10.1.1.32.9876
- MDO in Aircraft Design
- NSDE IEEE Energy Jrnal 40Unit
- Paper
- SLOPE CONSTRAINED TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION.pdf
- 30120140501006
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X09003242-main
- TESIS MULTIOBJETIVOS.pdf
- A Parallel Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Multi-reservoir System

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

2, MARCH 2015

857

Transient Stability Based on Parallel NSGA-II

Cheng-Jin Ye and Min-Xiang Huang

operation and the transient stability constrained optimal power

flow (OPF) has always received considerable attention in recent

years. In this paper, the defects of the existing models and algorithms around this topic are firstly analyzed, on the basis of

which, a multi-objective optimization method is proposed. The

basic idea of the proposed method is to model transient stability

as an objective function rather than an inequality constraint and

consider classic transient stability constrained OPF (TSCOPF) as

a tradeoff procedure using Pareto ideology. Second, a master-slave

parallel elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II is used

to solve the proposed multi-objective optimization problem, the

parallel algorithm shows an excellent acceleration effect and

provides a set of Pareto optimal solutions for decision makers to

select. An innovative weight assigning technique based on fuzzy

membership variance is also introduced for a more scientific and

objective optimal solution decision. Case study results demonstrate the proposed multi-objective method has many advantages,

compared with traditional TSCOPF methods.

Rotor angle vector.

Angular speed vector.

Rotor angle of th generator at integration step

after the th expected fault.

Center of inertia of system rotor angles at

integration step after the th expected fault.

Moment of inertia of the th generator.

Number of Pareto optimal solutions.

Number of objective functions.

The th objective function value of the th

Pareto optimal solution.

Maximum of the th objective function.

NSGA-II, OPF, parallel computing, power system, transient

stability.

Total active load.

Total transmission loss.

NOMENCLATURE

Fuzzy membership of the th objective

function of the th Pareto optimal solution.

System state variable/variable vector.

processors.

state variable value at time or

.

Step counter.

Number of generators.

Number of buses.

Number of branches.

Number of expected faults.

Manuscript received January 20, 2014; revised April 18, 2014 and June 06,

2014; accepted July 10, 2014. Date of publication July 25, 2014; date of current

version February 17, 2015. Paper no. TPWRS-01624-2013.

The authors are with the College of Electrical Engineering, Hangzhou

310027, China (e-mail: yechenjing@zju.edu.cn; Huangmx@zju.edu.cn).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2339352

I. INTRODUCTION

power system since it was proposed in the early 1960s

[1], [2]. In traditional OPF equations, stability constraint is usually excluded; however, the system operating at the point suggested by OPF may not be able to maintain transient stable

when subject to credible contingencies. Due to the rapid increase of electricity demand and the electricity market deregulation, power systems tend to operate closer to stability boundaries. As a consequence, transient stability has been one of the

main concerns in power system operation and the transient stability constrained OPF (TSCOPF) was brought into being.

0885-8950 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.

See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

858

Mathematically, TSCOPF is commonly modeled as a complicated nonlinear programming (NLP) problem including

massive constraints of differential algebraic equations. The two

main approaches to study TSCOPF are simulation based on

numerical discretization [3] and constraint transformation [4].

Recently, various methods have also been proposed, including

trajectory sensitivity method [5], semi-infinite programming

[6], transient energy function method [7], implicit enumeration method [8], and single-machine equivalent method [9].

Among these approaches, a combination of the numerical

discretization with the interior point method (IPM) has been

considered as a mainstream. One important extension of IPM

is the so-called reduced-space IPM (RIPM) [10]. RIPM has

shown a great improvement for solving numerical-discretization-based TSCOPF problem. However, dimensionality curse

still exists for data-intensive TSCOPF. And IPM naturally

relies on convexity to obtain the global optimum. However,

TSCOPF in realistic modern power system is generally indeed

non-convex, so researchers are forced to adopt a set of hypothesis and simplifications, otherwise they may suffer a lot

from unsolvability or non-convergence problems or get local

optimum. To overcome this problem, intelligence algorithms

(IA) such as differential evolution algorithm (DE) [11] and

particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12] were introduced to

enhance robustness. The competition between IA and IPM is

one of the most active factors in TSCOPF research and is also

one of the main lines of this paper.

Though, great progress around TSCOPF has been reported

in the existing literatures mentioned above, the mathematical

models are always limited to single-objective optimization

[3][12]. Specifically, fuel cost is modeled as the sole objective

function, transient stability and voltage or branch load flow are

formulated as constraints. However, it must be noted that certain differences do exist between transient stability and static

security constraint. Static security constraints are rigid and

must be always respected during the power system operation;

while, contingencies are not bound to happen, sometimes, to

obtain a lower fuel or operation cost, some dispatch centers

allow generators to operate under a certain degree of instability

in a certain period of time. Therefore, modeling stability as an

inequality constraint is not in accordance with the fact that OPF

is a tradeoff procedure among the three factors of cost, security

and stability; while, until recently, relevant multi-objective

optimization research is inadequate and not systematic, hence

multi-objective modification of traditional TSCOPF problem is

of significant theoretical and practical value. The first motivation of this paper is to adopt Pareto optimal ideology to redefine

TSCOPF problem and propose a multi-objective OPF (MOPF)

model considering transient stability. Inspired by the satisfactory application results of DE and PSO in solving TSCOPF

[11], [12], the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II

(NSGA-II) is introduced to solve the proposed multi-objective

optimization problem, which has been demonstrated to be effective in research areas such as optimal distributed generation

(DG) allocation [13] and transmission expansion planning [14].

NSGA-II provides a set of Pareto optimal solutions for decision

makes to select. This is the most important and significant

advantage of the proposed method. In order to select unbiased

optimal solution more scientifically, a weight method based on

fuzzy membership variance is also recommended.

proposed MOPF problem is extremely time- consuming [3], especially for large-scale power systems and multiple contingencies. The second motivation of this paper is to adopt parallel

computing technology to recompose NSGA-II program structure and shorten the execution time. Simulation results show

that the proposed algorithm has an excellent acceleration effect

to solve data-intensive problems.

II. CLASSIC STABILITY-CONSTRAINED

OPTIMAL POWER FLOW MODEL

The most common problem of transient stability is to study

the post-fault trajectory stability problem. With a given system

operating point, it can be expressed as a classic Cauchy problem:

(1)

where

represents the dynamic behavior of the

system. is the system state variable value at the fault clearing

time. Assumption is made that

is a stable equilibrium point

exists

of the above problem, a stable region denoted as

around

[15]. The basic condition to maintain stability of the

above system is:

.

is subjected to the following two

variables: a) power flow control variable including generator

power output, generator terminal voltage and transformer taps,

etc. b) network variable such as nodal voltages and branch

. Network variflows. It can be expressed as:

ables respect the power flow equation

.

in

problem (1) is also associated with control variable , and it can

. With a given , there is a corresponding

be written as

stable equilibrium point and a stable region . To highlight

the correlation of stable region and control variables, the stable

region is denoted by

. Thus, TSCOPF can be expressed as

follows [16]:

(2.1)

(2.2)

(2.3)

(2.4)

(2.5)

(2.6)

(2.7)

In the above TSCOPF model, (2.1) is the objective function

(fuel cost or the modification amount of scheduled contract

power generation in deregulated power market); (2.3) is

the static security constraints such as thermal constraints of

branches and nodal voltage constraints; (2.4) is the constraints

of generator power outputs or voltages and the constraints of

transformer taps, etc.

All kinds of Lyapunov direct methods such as transient

energy function method and the extended equal area criterion

method are unable to give enough robustness and calculation

speed [17], [18]. On the other hand, engineers have long been

accustomed to use simulation method to judge the transient

stability. If the simulation time is long enough, simulation

method is able to guarantee sufficient accuracy. And if the

YE AND HUANG: MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL POWER FLOW CONSIDERING TRANSIENT STABILITY BASED ON PARALLEL NSGA-II

fast enough [19].

According to the basic idea of the simulation method reported

in [3], by application of the trapezoidal integration principle

on (2.6), TSCOPF can be transformed into a general nonlinear

programming problem. Specifically, the infinite time constraint

(2.7) is transformed into the following finite time algebraic constraint:

(3)

If is long enough, as long as the rotor angle is limited (such

as the maximum relative rotor angle is less than 150 ), the transient stability of the system can be guaranteed. (2.1)(2.6) and

(3) actually is an optimal parameter selection under a fixed terminal in optimal control theory [20]. Equation (2.6) can be converted into the following difference equation:

859

and can be of various modeling approaches. Here, we only consider the rotor angle stability and adopt the following penalty

function:

(8)

is the sum of punitive amount for rotor

As can be seen,

angle deviations exceeding the threshold after the occurrence

of the expected faults in a given duration. Penalty coefficient

in this paper. The position of COI is calculated as a

weighted average as follows [3]:

(9)

(4)

where

. Now, constraint (3) of limited

time and infinite dimension is completely converted into finite

dimensional algebraic constraint:

. And TSCOPF is

modeled as a conventional nonlinear programming problem as

follows:

(5.1)

(5.2)

(5.3)

(5.4)

Penalty operator

(10)

a threshold. is decided based on operational experience. Commonly, it is set to a value between 100 and 150 to maintain

sufficient stability margin [3], [11], [12].

is an objective function constituted by static power flow

variables such as transmission loss and voltage qualified rate.

Though this kind of function is of various forms, its modeling

and calculating is relatively simple, so

is not considered in

the following section of this paper.

IV. NSGA-II AND ITS MODIFICATION

STRATEGY FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPF

CONSIDERING TRANSIENT STABILITY

The dispatch of power system is associated with a variety of

factors. In many cases, engineers concern more about how to

coordinate cost, security and stability of power system rather

than getting a single rigid TSCOPF solution. In this way, transient stability is modeled as one of OPF optimization objectives, rather than a constraint. To meet practical application, additional power flow optimization objectives can also be incorporated into the model. The multi-objective OPF model can be

expressed as follows:

(6.1)

(6.2)

(6.3)

(6.4)

(6.5)

is always modeled as the total cost of fuel consumed by

generators:

(7)

In 1989, Goldberg proposed a method to calculate the fitness

based on the concept of Pareto optimal, the level of non-inferior

solutions and the corresponding selection operator were used to

optimize populations towards the Pareto optimal direction [21].

Based on Goldbergs idea, a variety of multi-objective genetic

algorithms (GA) have been proposed, including Full Fusion GA

(FFGA), Niched Pareto GA (NPGA), Non-dominated Sorting

GA (NSGA), Simplex Parallel GA (SPGA) etc. Among these,

NSGA proposed by Srinivas was considered generally as a direct expression of Goldbergs idea and of the best performance

[22]. Based on NSGA, Deb further proposed NSGA-II with an

elitism strategy, which achieves a calculation complexity decrease and avoids the setting of sharing parameter [23].

NSGA-II has been demonstrated to be among the most efficient algorithms for multi-objective optimization on a number

of benchmark problems. Its detailed implementation procedure

can be found in [23], a brief description of NSGA-II procedure

is shown in Fig. 1.

The population is initialized as usual and then sorted based on

non-domination levels into fronts. The first front is a set of chromosomes being completely non-dominant or not dominated by

any other individuals in the current population, the second front

being dominated by the chromosomes in the first front only and

860

Fig. 1. Flow chart of NSGA-II procedure.

called crowding distance is calculated for each chromosome.

The crowding distance is a measure of how close a chromosome

is to its neighbors. Large average crowding distance will result

in better diversity in the population. Parents are selected from

the population by using Binary Tournament Selection based on

operator

.

is based on front rank and crowding distance

as follows [22], [23]:

a) The chromosome with the higher front rank value is

greater than the other regardless of crowding distance,

and is selected;

b) The chromosome with the larger crowding distance is

greater than the others located in the same front, and is

selected.

The selected parent population generates offsprings after the

operation of crossover and mutation operators. The population

with the current population and current offsprings is sorted

again based on non-domination and only the best individuals

are selected, so elitism is guaranteed, where is the population

size. The selection is also based on front rank and the crowding

distance on the last front.

B. Master-Slave Parallel NSGA-II on MPI

Due to a heavy task of power flow calculation and a large

number of numerical integrations, MOPF is inevitably a dataintensive and time-consuming problem. To solve this problem,

parallel computing is a worth trying method. There are a few

of libraries to apply parallel computation, such as the SharedMemory Processor (SMP) approach and the Message Passing

Interface (MPI) approach, etc. The MPI approach is used in this

paper as it has the following advantages [24]:

a) MPI is the most widely-supported communication library

for high-performance computing. Free implementations

of MPI are open access on the Internet [25][27].

b) With MPIs approximately 125 functions, engineers

need not to program common communication structures

themselves. A complete message passing program can be

written with only six basic functions: MPI_Init, MPI_Finalize, MPI_Comm_ rank, MPI_Comm_size, MPI_Send,

and MPI_Recv.

c) MPI has portability to almost all the major platforms.

processors.

processors is abbreviated to PNSGA-II

. Fig. 2

using

shows the procedure of PNSGA-II

, and the detailed steps

can be described as follows:

Step 1) Processor 0

initialize MPI environment

and set PNSGA-II parameters including: the size

of population ; crossover probability , muta; the maximum iteration number

tion probability

and the lower and upper limits of the corresponding decision variables, etc.

Step 2) Processor 0 reads network data and broadcasts public

data through message passing interface, such as load

data, bus data, generator data, branch data and transformer data, etc. Processor1

receive and

store public data.

Step 3) Processor 0 sets the value of iteration counter:

and randomly generates a swarm of chromosomes,

each chromosome stands for a candidate solution to

MOPF, to constitute the parent population . Let

be .

the size of

Step 4) Processor 0 executes

, here, is an

integer and the swarm

is divided into

parts

evenly, then these parts are sent to the rest

processors by processor 0, each part has chromosomes. If cannot be divided exactly, let integer

and

be the quotient and remainder of

,

respectively. In this way, Processor1

receive chromosomes; Processor

receives

chromosomes.

Step 5) Processor 1

calculate the objective function values of their own chromosomes based on the

fast-decoupled load flow method [28] and trapezoidal integration method [29].

Step 6) Processor 0 gathers the objective function values of

all chromosomes from processor 1

. Processor 0 sorts the parent population

into fronts

according to non-domination levels and assigns

each chromosome a crowding distance.

Step 7) Processor 0 uses Binary Tournament Selection, Simulated Binary Crossover (SBX) [30] and Polynomial

Mutation (PM) [31] operators to create an offspring

population

with the size of . Then, processor

0 executes the elitism strategy:

.A

is formed.

combined population with the size of

YE AND HUANG: MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL POWER FLOW CONSIDERING TRANSIENT STABILITY BASED ON PARALLEL NSGA-II

TABLE I

UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS OF CONTROL VARIABLES

into fronts as:

according to non-dominaare chosen from the

tion. Offspring population

chromosomes of

in the order of their front rank.

Thus, the best non-dominated front

is of the

is chosen next,

highest selection priority and

followed by

, and so on. Processor 0 continues

this procedure until no more fronts can be accommodated. Say that

is the last non- dominated front

beyond which no other front can be accommodated.

To choose exactly offspring chromosomes needed

, Processor 0 sorts the chromosomes of

to fill

the last front

using the crowded-comparison

operator

in descending order. Until now, an offspring population with the size of is completely

formed.

Step 9) Processor 0 executes

. If the iteration

, go to step 4. Otherwise, go to

counter

step 10.

Step 10) Processor 0 selects the best Pareto optimal solution

of the current iteration using a weighted method

based on membership variance from the first front of

. Then all processors exit MPI environment and

terminate the PNSGA -II program.

Due to the complexity of MOPF optimization, as well as the

vagueness of human thoughts, the traditional optimal solution

selection strategy based on subjective preference is of significant limitation. This paper proposes an innovative selection

method based on fuzzy membership and variance weight.

Membership indicates the optimization degree of objective

functions. Here, some fuzzy theory techniques are applied. The

fuzzy membership of the th objective function of the th Pareto

optimal solution can be expressed as

(11)

Objective function values of the Pareto optimal solutions are

normalized to a real between 0 and 1 by (11).

In this paper, we quantify the quality of a Pareto optimal solution through its weighted sum of fuzzy memberships. A weight

assignment method based on the membership variance is introduced to reduce subjectivity:

(12)

In (12),

is the fuzzy membership

variance of the th objective function. The proposed weighting

method naturally respects the constraint:

and emphasizes the objective of a larger fluctuation of optimization results

more. Specifically, the larger the fuzzy membership variance of

, the larger the weight assigned to ; and vice versa.

The sum of weighted fuzzy memberships of each solution is

calculated and used as an unbiased optimal solution indicator:

(13)

Due to the randomness in initialization, crossover and mutation process, some invalid chromosomes will be generated

inevitably. In order to help improving efficiency, an improved

search space reduction technique is introduced.

The sum of the active generation power that has been dis,

patched to all generators excluding the slack generators is

the lower and upper active power limits of the slack generator

are

and

, respectively. Assumption is made that

is approximated as 10% of

and the following two conditions are premeditated [11]:

be considered as a bad one and polynomial mutation operator

will be repeatedly performed on it, until the two conditions are

no longer respected. This can greatly reduce the time required

to deal with invalid solutions. Further, for some invalid candidates that are against static security or other constraints, we can

prompt them to be automatically abandoned by setting their objective functions to large values, for example:

.

861

where

is used as selection priority value of the th

optimal solution.

solution. The solution with the maximum value is regarded

as the best unbiased optimal solution.

V. CASE STUDIES

A. Parameters Setting

The IEEE 39-bus system is used to show the feasibility of the

proposed method, the capacity benchmark is 100 MVA, basic

network parameters are available in [32] and [33], and the fuel

cost coefficients are available in [34].

,

.

The population size of PNSGA-II is 50. There are 18 control

variables including 9 generator active power outputs and 9 generator bus voltages. The upper and lower limits of control variables and some other variables are shown in Table I.

The following two three-phase to ground faults are considered: Fault A: a three-phase to ground fault took place at bus

29 and cleared by tripping line 2829 after 0.1 s; Fault B: a

three-phase to ground fault took place at bus 26 and cleared by

tripping line 2526 after 0.1 s.

862

Fig. 3. Location of the PNSGA-II (16) population after 50 iterations of evolution.

Fig. 4. Location of the PNSGA-II (16) population after 100 iterations of evolution.

The proposed approach is implemented on a PC cluster containing 8 nodes all equipped with two Intel Xeon 2.33-GHz

quad-core CPUs and an 8-GB DDR3 memory and connected on

a Gigabit Ethernet network. So the maximum number of available parallel processors is 32, equal to the number of real CPU

cores of the clusters.

B. Pareto Optimal Solutions

Figs. 3 and 4 show the location of the population got by

PNSGA-II (16) after 50 and 100 generations of evolution, respectively. As can be seen, the population assembling effect has

been quite obvious with a non-dominated front appearing after

50 iterations of evolution. After 100 iterations, the locations of

the solutions tend to be identical; the entire population is located at a few aggregation points. To avoid randomness, we run

PNSGA-II (16) 10 times repeatedly. The locations of populations are roughly the same, indicating that the parallel algorithm

has a strong global optimization ability and significant convergence stability.

Fig. 5 shows the proportion of Pareto optimal solutions in the

population. With the increasing of iteration, the solutions tend

to be identical, but the proportion of non-dominated solutions in

the population increases gradually. After 100 iterations, inferior

solutions which are dominated by others have been eliminated

completely.

Table II shows the solution set consisted by 11 Pareto optimal

solutions after 100 generations of evolution. Determined by the

characteristics of the proposed model, the two objective functions of the problem are conflicting. To reduce the cost, the generators of lower cost coefficients are dispatched to output more

TABLE II

PARETO OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS OF PNSGA-II (16) AFTER 100 ITERATIONS

inevitably, and vice versa. Better to meet one objective between

the cost and stability, inevitably at the expense of the other one.

Take solution 2 and 11 as examples, the fuel cost of solution 2 is

the lowest but the system is transient instable after fault B as the

divergent rotor angle curves indicated. While, solution 11 with

a higher fuel cost is transient stable after fault B, according to

Fig. 6.

C. Comparison With TSCOPF Methods

In Table III, solution 11 is the most attention-catching, whose

reaches 0, such solutions with

are considered to

be strictly transient stable; accordingly, the solutions with the

lowest

are called the most transient stable solutions.

in

Table III is mean Manhattan Distance calculated by

(14)

is the th decision variable value of the most tranwhere

sient stable solution got by IPM-based TSCOPF.

is the

th decision variable value of the most transient stable solution

got by other certain method.

In the following section, comparisons between the four

methods are carried out by the following four aspects:

a) Availability and robustness. As a mature IA method,

open- source implementations of NSGA-II are available

on the Internet, its programming and debugging is much

easier than IPM, which relies on convexity to obtain the

global optimum. Table IV gives the execution time of

PNSGA-II and IPM on IEEE-39, 300 and 678 test systems, symbol X represents failure to converge. As can

YE AND HUANG: MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL POWER FLOW CONSIDERING TRANSIENT STABILITY BASED ON PARALLEL NSGA-II

Fig. 6. Relative rotor angle curves to COI under solution 2 and 11 after fault.

(a) Relative rotor angle curves undersolution 11 after fault B. (b) Relative rotor

angle curves undersolution 2 after fault B.

TABLE III

MOST TRANSIENT STABLE SOLUTIONS GOT

BY DIFFERENT METHODS ON IEEE-39 TEST SYSTEM

be seen, the proposed method is always able to get a result, while IPM suffers a lot from problems of non-convergence in large scale power systems.

b) Execution time. If the maximum iteration is 100, average

time of the proposed method on 16 processors is 12.1% of

DE-based TSCOPF, 7.86% of PSO-based TSCOPF, and

1.47 times of RIPM-based TSCOPF. Given in Table IV,

when 32 processors are used, average time of PNSGA-II

drops to 23.18 s and is only 1.22 times of IPM-based

TSCOPF. So compared with serial IA-based TSCOPF, the

proposed parallel method has an obvious decrease in time

and lags slightly behind serial IPM-based TSCOPF when

enough number of parallel processors is used.

c) The optimization ability of fuel cost and transient stability.

863

most transient stable solution got by the proposed

method is much higher than PSO-based TSCOPF,

and slightly higher than IPM and DE-based TSCOPF.

So the ability array of obtaining lower fuel cost in

descending order is: PSO, IPM, DE, PNSGA-II.

Transient stability: In every DE [11] iteration, transient stable individuals with lower cost are selected

as seeds to push the population to converge, so the

final solution got by DE-based TSCOPF is generally

transient stable. PSO [12] uses the weighted sum of

rotor angle deviations to COI and fuel cost as fitness

to evaluate the particles. So the PSO-based TSCOPF

solution is not inevitably strictly transient stable.

As Table III indicated, IPM only needs 11 iterations

to get a strictly transient stable solution, DE-based

TSCOPF gets strictly transient stable solution after

50-iter. PSO-based TSCOPF fails to get strictly transient stable solution even in 100-iter, the proposed

method gets such solutions after 100-iter. So the

ability array of obtaining strictly transient stable

solution in descending order is: IPM, DE, PNSGA-II,

PSO. Obviously, IPM is of the strongest ability to

obtain theoretical TSCOPF solution, so it is used as

a benchmark in Eq. 14 to evaluate the optimization

abilities of different methods.

Given in Table III, with the same iteration,

of the

proposed method is slightly higher than

of DE-based

TSCOPF and much lower than

of PSO-based

TSCOPF, which is consistent with the order mentioned

above. So the optimization ability of the proposed method

is far greater than PSO-based TSCOPF and similar to

DE-based TSCOPF.

Shown in Table IV.

of the proposed method on IEEE

300 test system is also below 5% when 100 iterations of

evolution are carried out.

on IEEE-39 system with different iterations of PNSGA- II are further shown in Fig. 7.

gradually decreases with the increasing number of iteration and reaches 0.75% at 200-iter, which is a negligible difference. So the proposed method is able to get a

theoretical TSCOPF solution if enough iterations of evolution are executed.

d) Diversity of the final results. The final result of NSGA-II

is not a single solution but a Pareto solution set including

the strictly transient stable solutions suggested by

TSCOPF (e.g., solution 11), this is considered as the most

significant characteristic and advantage of the proposed

method. Decision-makers can select their ideal schemes

from Table II according to their preferences. For example:

i) Decision maker A claims that the system must be

strictly transient stable, then solution 11 is the ideal

option.

ii) Decision maker B prefers a low fuel cost, rather than

the transient stability, and then solution 2 with the

minimum

is the suggested one.

iii) Decision maker C has no significant preference;

he may choose the unbiased optimal solution with

the best balance between

and

based on the

weighted method. Fig. 8 shows the selection priority value of all the Pareto solutions calculated by

864

TABLE IV

AVERAGE EXECUTION TIME WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PROCESSORS

WHEN TWO FAULTS WERE CONSIDERED ON THREE IEEE TEST SYSTEMS

Fig. 10. Speedup factors with different numbers of processors on three IEEE

test systems.

and IPM.

PNSGA-II are of obvious precocious phenomenon. The array of

optimization effect in descending order is: NSGA-II, SPEA-II,

GSA, and MPSO.

D. Analysis of Speedups, Efficiency, System Scale, and Faults

Number Considered

Three test systems are used to check the performance of the

proposed method in this section. Table IV summarizes these test

systems and gives the average time of 5 PNSGA-II runs when

different numbers of processors are used.

Obviously, the execution time decreases rapidly as the

number of processors grows. To further evaluate the parallel

performance of the master-slave PNSGA-II, the speedup factor

and the efficiency

are introduced. These two indices

are calculated as follows [24]:

(15)

Eq. 13. Apparently, solution 3 with the maximum

(0.83) is considered as the suggested solution.

This method succeeds in avoiding the blindness of

traditional decision method.

The proposed method provides decision-makers more options and a larger flexibility, in this way, one only need to do

re-selection instead of repeating the optimization procedure

when his preference changes.

To compare the optimization ability of different multi-objective optimization algorithms, we use PNSGA-II, MPSO (Multiobjective PSO) [34], SPEA-II (Improved Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm) [35], and GSA (Gravitational Search Algorithm) [36] to optimize the above IEEE-39 case. The maximum iterations of the four algorithms are all 50. The results are

shown in Fig. 9. As can be seen, the four algorithms all get clear

Pareto fronts, but front got by PNSGA-II is relatively closer to

(16)

Figs. 10 and 11 present the satisfactory speedup factors and

efficiencies of the proposed method. The highest speedup factor

reaches 28.7 and the corresponding efficiency is 89.7%. So the

master-slave parallel modification of NSGA-II program structure is valid and necessary.

Shown in Fig. 10, with the growing number of processors,

the speedup factor increases but the increasing speed gradually

slows down and the efficiency always decreases. Parallelization

is conducive to take full advantage of computing ability and

benefits shortening execution time. However, the overhead for

communication system is unavoidable, when the number of processors increases, communication task accounts for a growing

share in the whole execution procedure, causing the dropping of

both

and increasing speed of

.

865

Fig. 11. Efficiencies with different numbers of processors on three IEEE test

systems.

TABLE V

AVERAGE EXECUTION TIME WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS

OF PROCESSORS WHEN DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF FAULTS

ARE CONSIDERED ON IEEE-39 TEST SYSTEM

Fig. 12. Speedup factors on IEEE-39 test systems with different numbers of

faults considered.

2 processors, the increasing multiple of execution time from 2

faults to 10 faults is

, while this multiple

drops to

when 32 processors are used. It

implies that if our cluster hardware meets condition and provides more parallel processors than 32, this algorithm can overcome the impact of the increasing faults number and handle

multi-contingency cases.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

of the proposed method on IEEE

300 test system reaches 3.9% when 100 iterations of evolution

are carried out, indicating the proposed method is still effective in real-sized power systems, but its applicability drops due

to the rapid increase of execution time. It must be noted that a

larger systems speedup factor is bigger than a smaller systems

one when the number of processors are the same. And the relation between the speedup factors and the number of processors is almost linear in the IEEE 678 power system. It implies

that on large-scale power systems the increase of processors will

not affect the efficiency much, this is also confirmed as the decreasing speed of efficiency in IEEE 678 is the slower than the

other two. So it is not hard to predict that, a more satisfactory

speedup factor and a higher efficiency can be obtained when applying PNSGA-II in large-scale power systems with thousands

of buses.

SBSI is the most time-consuming part in PNSGA-II procedure, while the SBSI time depends on the number of faults considered. So the proposed method is very sensitive to the number

of faults considered. As shown in Table V, with the increasing

faults number, mean Manhattan distance with IPM gradually

increases, indicating a slight drop of optimization ability on

more faults cases. On the other hand, average execution time

of PNSGA-II grows rapidly with the increasing faults number,

but the growing trend is not entirely linear. Reported in [37], execution time per iteration of reduced-space IPM may not change

much when faults number varies, so it is one of the main drawbacks of the proposed method.

Fig. 12 indicates the fact that the relation between the speedup

factors and the number of processors is more linear when a

A multi-objective model is proposed in this paper as an effective quantitative analysis tool for OPF associated with cost, security and transient stability. A parallel NSGA-II is introduced

to search the Pareto optimal solutions, as well as a weighted

membership method for optimal solution selection. The proposed method has the following main features:

i) Providing a Pareto optimal solution set, rather than

a single strictly transient stable solution for decision-makers to select their ideal schemes according to

different preference. This is essentially different from

traditional TSCOPF and the proposed method is considered to be able to get a theoretically strictly transient

stable solution as well if enough iterations of evolution

are carried out.

ii) As an IA method, PNSGA-II is open-source, and much

easier to code and debug with a more significant robustness than IPM.

iii) Compared with serial IA-based TSCOPF, the proposed

parallel method has an obvious decrease in time and

lags slightly behind serial IPM-based TSCOPF when

enough number of parallel processors is used. Satisfactory speedup factors demonstrate the feasibility of

application the master-slave parallel algorithm to reduce

the optimization time and the acceleration is more effective in more data-intensive systems. It is a big push for

the proposed method to be applied in realistic large-scale

or multi-contingency power systems.

Following the idea of the proposed method in this paper,

many interesting topics are worth investigating in future research work:

i. Static power flow objective function

is reserved in

the proposed multi-objective OPF model, and NSGA-II

is naturally not sensitive to the number of objective functions, so more objective functions such as transmission

866

considered.

ii. To shorten the overhead for communication and further

improve optimization speed, the implementation of the

parallel algorithm on a supercomputer rather than PC

cluster is a worth trying method.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Huneault and F. D. Galiana, A survey of the optimal power flow

literature, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 762770, May

1991.

[2] G. Sergio, Optimal reactive dispatch through interior point methods,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 136146, Feb. 1994.

[3] D. Gan, R. J. Thomas, and R. D. Zimmerman, Stability-constrained

optimal power flow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, pp.

535540, May 2000.

[4] L. Chen, Y. Taka, H. Okamoto, R. Tanabe, and A. Ono, Optimal operation solutions of power systems with transient stability constraints,

IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 327339, 2001.

[5] T. Nguyen and M. A. Pai, Dynamic security-constrained rescheduling

of power systems using trajectory sensitivities, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 848854, May 2003.

[6] Y. Xia and W. Ka, Dynamic constrained optimal power flow using

semi-infinite programming, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 3,

pp. 1455l457, Aug. 2006.

[7] Y. Xia, K. W. Chan, and M. Liu, Direct nonlinear primal-dual interiorpoint method for transient stability constrained optimal power flow,

Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 152, no. 1, pp.

1116, 2005.

[8] H. Xin, D. Gan, Z. Huang, K. Zhuang, and L. Cao, Applications of stability-constrained optimal power flow in the east China system, IEEE

Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 14231433, Aug. 2010.

[9] A. Pizano-Martinez, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, and D. Ruiz-Vega, Global

transient stability-constrained optimal power flow using an OMIB

reference trajectory, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp.

392403, Feb. 2010.

[10] Q. Jiang and G. Geng, A reduced-space interior point method for transient stability constrained optimal power flow, IEEE Trans. Power

Syst., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 12321240, Aug. 2010.

[11] H. R. Cai, C. Y. Chung, and K. P. Wong, Application of differential

evolution algorithm for transient stability constrained optimal power

flow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 719728, May 2008.

[12] N. Mo, Z. Y. Zou, K. W. Chan, and T. Y. G. Pong, Transient stability

constrained optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization,

IET Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 476483, 2007.

[13] K. Nekooei, M. M. Farsangi, H. N. Pour, and K. Y. Lee, An improved

multi-objective harmony search for optimal placement of DGs in distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 557567,

2013.

[14] P. Maghouli and S. H. Hosseini, Multi-objective framework for

transmission expansion planning in deregulated environments, IEEE

Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 10511061, May 2009.

[15] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, second ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ,

USA: Prentice Hall, 1996.

[16] D. Gan, D. Chattopadhyay, and X. Luo, An improved method for optimal operation under stability constraints, in Proc. IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conf., Dallas, TX, USA, Sep. 2003.

[17] Y. Xue, T. Van Cutsem, and M. Ribbens-Pavella, A simple direct

method for fast transient stability assessment of power systems, IEEE

Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 400412, May 1988.

[18] J. Tong, H. D. Chiang, and T. P. Conneen, A Sensitivity-based BCU

method for fast derivation of stability limits in electric power systems,

IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 14181428, Nov. 1993.

[19] D. Xia and G. T. Heydt, On-line transient stability assessment using

higher-order Taylor expansion, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.

PAS-102, no. 7, pp. 20382046, 1983.

[20] L. S. Pontryagin et al., The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes. New York, NY, USA: Wiley Interscience, 1962.

[21] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithm for Search, Optimization, Machine

Learning. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman, 1989.

[22] N. Srinivas and K. Deb, Multi-objective optimization using non-dominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evol. Computat., vol. 2, no. 3, pp.

221248, 1994.

[23] K. Deb, A. Pratap, and S. Agarwal et al., A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat.,

vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182197, 2002.

[24] Y. Li, Y. J. Cao, Z. Y. Liu, L. Yi, and Q. Y. Jiang, Dynamic optimal reactive power dispatch based on parallel particle swarm optimization algorithm, Comput. Math. Applicat., vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 18351842, 2009.

[25] [Online]. Available: http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/mpi/mpich/

[26] [Online]. Available: http://www.lam-mpi.org/

[27] [Online]. Available: http://www.open-mpi.org/

[28] B. Stott and O. Alsac, Fast Decoupled load flow, IEEE Trans. Power

App. Syst., vol. PAS-93, no. 3, pp. 859869, 1974.

[29] D. P. Kothari and I. J. Nagrath, Modern Power System Analysis.

Noida, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2003.

[30] K. Deb and R. B. Agarwal, Simulated binary crossover for continuous

search space, Complex Syst., vol. 9, pp. 115148, 1995.

[31] M. M. Raghuwanshi and O. G. Kakde, Survey on multi-objective evolutionary and real coded genetic algorithms, in Proc. 8th Asia Pacific

Symp. Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems, 2004, pp. 150161.

[32] R. Zimmerman and D. Gan, MATPOWER: A Matlab Power System

Simulation Package, 2005.

[33] J. H. Chow, Power system toolbox version 2.0, Cherry Tree Scientific

Software, 2000.

[34] F. R. Zaro and M. A. Abido, Multi-objective particle swarm optimization for optimal power flow in a deregulated environment of power

systems, in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 2011.

[35] M. T. Al-Hajri and M. A. Abido, Multi-objective optimal power flow

using improved strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA2),

in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Intelligent Systems Design and Applications,

2011, pp. 10971103.

[36] A. Bhattacharya and P. K. Roy, Solution of multi-objective optimal

power flow using gravitational search algorithm, IET Gen., Transm.,

Distrib., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 751763, 2012.

[37] G. Geng and Q. Jiang, A two-level parallel decomposition approach

for transient stability constrained optimal power flow, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 20632073, Nov. 2012.

Cheng-Jin Ye was born in Hangzhou, China, in

1987. He received the B.E. degree from the College

of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,

Hangzhou, China, in 2010, where he is currently

pursuing the Ph.D. degree.

His research interests include power grid planning,

renewable energy generation technology, and power

system optimization.

in 1955. He received the B.E. degree from North

China Electric Power College, Baoding, China, in

1980, and the M.S. degree from Zhejiang University,

Hangzhou, China, in 1983.

He is currently a full Professor at the Department

of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University,

Hangzhou, China. His research interest includes

power grid planning, power system reliability

analysis, and electricity market issues.

- 1) Genetic AlgorithmЗагружено:yash
- Three_winding_transformer.pdfЗагружено:Haider Addewany Abu Hakema
- DK5739_CH13Загружено:Özer Ökten
- Albers - Types of Functional Relationships...Загружено:knoedel_n
- An Optimal More-for-Less Solution of Mixed Constraints Intuitionistic Fuzzy Transportation ProblemsЗагружено:P.SENTHIL KUMAR
- A STUDY ON OPTIMIZATION OF SHIP HULL FORM BASED ON NEURO-RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD (NRSM)Загружено:Goutam Kumar Saha
- Parallel Processing (Elective)Загружено:Abhishek Abhi
- Gaber CairoЗагружено:Deepak Kumar Singh
- EGH+00Загружено:MadhavanIce
- operating room scheduliingЗагружено:Achmad P. Rifai
- 51060242Загружено:Khwezi Toni
- 10.1.1.32.9876Загружено:Andres Zuñiga
- MDO in Aircraft DesignЗагружено:Jyotsna Reddy
- NSDE IEEE Energy Jrnal 40UnitЗагружено:nidulsinha
- PaperЗагружено:Dhaval Mer
- SLOPE CONSTRAINED TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION.pdfЗагружено:baba97k
- 30120140501006Загружено:IAEME Publication
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X09003242-mainЗагружено:budiyanto ahaliki
- TESIS MULTIOBJETIVOS.pdfЗагружено:Cesario Gillas
- A Parallel Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Multi-reservoir SystemЗагружено:Mariana Marselina
- 39-77-1-PBЗагружено:Aparna Rajasekharan
- A novel approach for load flowЗагружено:sf111
- A Comparison of Methods For Selecting Preferred Solutions in Multiobjective Decision MakingЗагружено:el_ruso__83
- 903 Process ModellingЗагружено:kumar_chemical
- Binder1 74.pdfЗагружено:Abdul Rahman
- 2012_OPTIM_Pop_10p_TSFsЗагружено:Chary
- 09 - SA5 Analysis of NGMN Requirement 9 - LTE Parameter Optimization (1).pptЗагружено:KeNt Sbap
- ESim2018Paper(Yin Li)Final3Загружено:Yin Li
- More 2013Загружено:nazeera
- D86-B15-2B8Загружено:Ickung ToGo

- Direct Methods for Transient Stability Studies in Power System Analysis (Lyapunov- Energy Function)Загружено:RafaelFunes
- Dinamic load Transient stabilityЗагружено:RafaelFunes
- Contingency Analysis and Risk Assessment (1)Загружено:RafaelFunes
- Hybrid Method for Transient Stability-Constrained OPF Computation a.Загружено:RafaelFunes
- Ecuacion de OscilacionЗагружено:RafaelFunes
- HarmonicЗагружено:RafaelFunes
- Algorithms and Test TCSOPFЗагружено:RafaelFunes
- Definition_classification of Power System Stability IEEE-CIGRE Joint Task Force on Stability Terms and DefinitionsЗагружено:lepton1892
- Formulation and Theory Newton Interior PointЗагружено:RafaelFunes

- Boosting & AdaboostЗагружено:Superquant
- Nash Equilibrium Chaos ComplexityЗагружено:Anonymous j0saba2Gh
- Features - Model Predictive Control Toolbox - MathWorks EspañaЗагружено:Maximo Plata Ley
- Zeng Jing - Design of Main Steam Temperature Cascade Control System Based on Fuzzy PIDЗагружено:Carlos Bellatin
- Statistical Treatment of ideal gasЗагружено:Asad Lodhi
- (eBook) - Computer-Controlled Systems - Solutions ManualЗагружено:milkacap
- Geovariances MPSЗагружено:Ronald Chevalier
- A Unified Method for Computing Incompressible and Compressible Flows in Boundary-fitted CoordinatesЗагружено:shahab_h2006
- Filtered Back Projection notesЗагружено:Giannis Gkouzionis
- Laboratory Exercise NrЗагружено:Gangadhar Vukkesala
- kwwskЗагружено:anon-620286
- 1st Unit Test in Math 9Загружено:MarlaFirmalino
- 8Загружено:Mohamad Ali Ansari
- Lazy List Implementation in RЗагружено:Soumendra_Pras_1912
- Ch09-Charting Diagramming1 (1).pdfЗагружено:Theslyness
- Sample Final AIЗагружено:David Le
- C01_02_enЗагружено:böhmit
- sensors-18-01306-v2.pdfЗагружено:Ram Bhagat Soni
- Estimation With ObserversЗагружено:har.san
- Gelman.pdfЗагружено:izeldien5870
- 06-CSE.pdfЗагружено:Claudio Alberto Manquirre
- Kalman Filter: Lecture NotesЗагружено:jprahladan
- Extended Online Graph Edge ColoringЗагружено:Anonymous lVQ83F8mC
- Hodge+Austin_OutlierDetection_AIRE381Загружено:Truong Thi Tuyet Hoa
- Probability.pptЗагружено:Gaurav Sonkar
- PhD Defense PresentationЗагружено:Ivar Løkken
- Solution 1 - SignalsЗагружено:Raja S
- PSO Surfing the WavesЗагружено:Jayagowri Cheluri
- Uncertainty Budget TemplateЗагружено:donkalonk
- ENME503 Assignments Solutions 02Загружено:Seifeldin T. Abdelghany