Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/amc
a
High technological Institute, 10th Ramadan city, Egypt
b
Department of Basic Engineering Science, Faculty Of Engineering, Moenoufia University,
Shebin El-Kom, Egypt
Abstract
Optimal power flow (OPF) is one of the main functions of power generation oper-
ation and control. It determines the optimal setting of generating units. It is therefore of
great importance to solve this problem as quickly and accurately as possible. This paper
presents the solution of the OPF using genetic algorithm technique. This paper proposes
a new methodology for solving OPF. This methodology is divided into two parts. The
first part employs the genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain a feasible solution subject to
desired load convergence, while the other part employs GA to obtain the optimal so-
lution. The main goal of this paper is to verify the viability of using genetic algorithm to
solve the OPF problem simultaneously composed by the load flow and the economic
dispatch problem. Six buses system are used to highlight the goodness of this solution
technique.
2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mabosinna2000@yahoo.com (M.A. Abo-Sinna).
0096-3003/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00785-9
392 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405
load variations, the output of generators has to be changed to meet the balance
between loads and generation therefore, the ELD is one of the fundamental
problems in power system operation and planning. The primary objective of
the economic dispatch (ED) problem is to find a set of active powers delivered
by the committed generators to satisfy at any time the required demand subject
to unit technical limits at the production cost. It is therefore of great impor-
tance to solve this problem as quickly and accurately as possible. Conventional
techniques offer good results but when the search space is nonlinear and has
discontinuities these techniques become difficult to solve with a slow conver-
gence ratio and not always seeking to the optimal solution. New numerical
methods are then needed to cope with these difficulties specially, those with
high-speed search to the optimal and not being trapped in local minima. On the
other hand, there has recently been a great deal of interest in promising genetic
algorithm (GA) [1,3–6] and its application to various disciplines including
power system planning operation and control. Genetic algorithms are also
being applied to a wide range of optimization and learning problems in many
domains. Genetic algorithms lend themselves well to power system optimiza-
tion since they are known to exhibit robustness, require to auxiliary informa-
tion, and can offer significant advantages in a solution methodology and
optimization performance. In this paper we formulate optimal power flow
(OPF) problem in Section 2. Section 3 describes genetic algorithm techniques.
In Section 4, we review some of constraint-handling techniques in genetic al-
gorithm. In Section 5, we define the OPF problem variables. Section 6 describes
the proposed algorithm. In Section 7, sample six-bus system are solved and the
results are introduced in Section 8. Finally Section 9 describes the main fea-
tures of the proposed algorithm.
X
Ng
2
f ðxÞ ¼ Ct ¼ ðai þ bi PGi þ ci PGi Þ
i
This objective function will minimize the total system costs, and does not
necessarily minimize the costs for a particular area within the power system,
where Ct is the total generation cost; ai , bi , ci , the cost function coefficients of
unit; PGi the real power generation of unit i; Ng , the total number of generation
units and i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; Ng .
The OPF equality constraints [7,9,11] reflect the physics of the power system
as well as the desired voltage set points throughout the system. The physics of
the power system are enforced through the power flow equations which require
that the net injection of real and reactive power at each bus sum to zero.
Therefore gðxÞ is
X
NB
DPp ¼ PGp Pcp Vp Vq Ypq cosðdp dq Hpq Þ
q¼1
X
NB
DQp ¼ QGp Qcp Vp Vq Ypq sinðdp dq Hpq Þ
q¼1
where PGp , QGp are the real and reactive power generations at bus P ; Pcp , Qcp the
real and reactive power demands at bus P ; VP , the voltage magnitude at bus P ;
Vq , the voltage magnitude at bus q; dp , the voltage angle at bus p; dq ; the voltage
angle at bus q; YPq , the admittance magnitude; Hpq , the admittance angle; NB ,
the total number of buses; P ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NB and q ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NB .
The inequality constraints of the OPF reflect the limits on physical devices in
the power system as well as the limits created to ensure system security.
Physical devices that require enforcement of limits include generators, tap
changing transformers, and phase shifting transformers.
PG min 6 PGp 6 PG max ; QG min 6 QGp 6 QG max ; Vmin 6 VP 6 Vmax ; dmin 6 dp 6 dmax
GA, invented by Holland [6] in the early 1970s, is a stochastic global search
method that mimics the metaphor of natural biological evaluation. GAs op-
erates on a population of candidate solutions encoded to finite bit string called
chromosome. In order to obtain optimality, each chromosome exchanges in-
formation by using operators borrowed from natural genetic to produce the
better solution. Fig. 1 shows outline of GAs for optimization problems. The
GAs differ from other optimization and search procedures in four ways:
394 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405
(1) GAs work with a coding of the parameter set, not the parameters them-
selves. Therefore GAs can easily handle the integer or discrete variables.
(2) GAs search from a population of points, not a single point. Therefore GAs
can provide a globally optimal solutions.
(3) GAs use only objective function information, not derivatives or other aux-
iliary knowledge. Therefore GAs can deal with the non-smooth, non-
continuous and non-differentiable functions which are actually existed in
a practical optimization problem.
(4) GAs use probabilistic transition rules, not deterministic rules.
Max f ðxÞ
x
s:t: x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn Þ 2 X Rn
gi ðxÞ 6 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k
hi ðxÞ ¼ 0; i ¼ k þ 1; . . . ; m
Let F Rn be the feasible set for the above problem. Applying the idea of
penalty functions, the above constrained optimization problem can be trans-
formed into an unconstrained optimization problem. The objective function of
the unconstrained optimization problem, which will be used as the fitness
function in the associated genetic algorithm designed to solve the initial con-
strained problem, has the following format:
f ðxÞ; if x 2 F
evalðxÞ ¼
f ðxÞ þ penaltyðxÞ; otherwise
How the penalty function is designed and applied to infeasible solutions may
differ in important details across problems.
where the fj ðxÞ are as defined above and m is the number of constraints in the
problem the central issue in this method is the determination of the relative
magnitudes of the coefficients fRij j1 6 i 6 l; 1 6 j 6 mg.
The weakness of the method is in the number of parameters. For m con-
straints the method requires mð2l þ 1Þ parameters in total: m parameters to
establish number of intervals for each constraint, l parameters for each con-
straint, defining the boundaries of the intervals (levels of violation), and l
parameters for each constraint representing the penalty coefficient Rij .
a
X
m
evalðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ ðC T Þ fjb ðxÞ
J ¼1
2
X
m
evalðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ ð0:5T Þ fj2 ðxÞ
J ¼1
The method requires much smaller number of parameters than the first
method. Also, instead of defining several levels of violation, the pressure on
a
infeasible solutions is increased due to the ðC T Þ component of the penalty
term: towards the end of the process (for high values of the generation number
t), this component assumes large values.
To solve optimal load flow via GA, variables defined as follow are needed
2 3
v
6 d 7
6 7 vp ; 8 bus 6¼ slack dp ; 8 pv bus
x¼6 7 where v ¼ ; d¼ ;
4 pG 5 vf ; otherwise 0; otherwise
QG
PGp ; pv bus QGp ; 8 pv bus
pG ¼ ; QG ¼
0; otherwise 0; otherwise
The slack bus generation level is calculated so as to meet the active and reactive
power balance of power system using
X
NL X
N g 1
where PL and QL are the active and reactive losses and NL is the total number of
buses.
The search space for genetic algorithm is the limits assigned to each variable:
The main idea behind this algorithm is based on the concept of repair al-
gorithm (repair infeasible solution) by introducing new repairing function. But
the present algorithm consists of two sub-algorithm, the first one search for
initial reference point that satisfy the constraint with the desired precision. On
the other hand, the second one search for the optimal solution for the opti-
mization problem.
The present method propose a new repairing function (repairing infeasible
solution) which work efficiently with any type of problems the result produced
by this approach are compared against other numerical and evolutionary op-
timization techniques in several engineering design problems with different
kinds of constraints. The results obtained show that the new approach can
consistently outperform the other techniques using relatively small sub popu-
lation, and without a significant in terms of performance.
398 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405
where the set S Rn defines the search space and the set F S defines a
feasible part of the search space.
At any point x 2 F, the constraint gk ðÞ satisfy gk ðxÞ ¼ 0 are called active
constraints at x. By extension, equality constraints hj ðÞ are called active at all
points of F. Nonlinear equation hj ðxÞ ¼ 0 requires an additional parameter (w)
to define the precision of the system [4].
All nonlinear equations hj ðxÞ ¼ 0 ðfor j ¼ q þ 1; . . . ; mÞ are replaced by pair
of inequalities: w 6 hj ðxÞ 6 w so we deal only with nonlinear inequalities.
In general, it is impossible to develop a deterministic method for the NLP in
the global optimization category, which would be better than the exhaustive
search. As stated by Gregory [2]
ItÕs unrealistic to expect to find one general NLP code thatÕs going to
work for every kind of nonlinear model. Instead, you try to select a code
that fits the problem you are solving. If your problem doesnÕt fit in any
category expect ‘‘general’’, or if you insist on a globally optimal solution
(except when there is no chance of encountering multiple local optima),
you should be prepared to have use a method that boils down to exhaus-
tive search, i.e., you have an intractable problem.
The proposed algorithm is divided into two parts. The first part employs
the genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain a feasible solution subject to desired
load convergence, while the other part employs GA to obtain the optimal
solution.
The proposed algorithm combines concept of co-evolution, repairing pro-
cedure (repairing infeasible solution) and elitist strategy. The main idea behind
it is repairing infeasible solutions to satisfy the feasible region, using an elitist
strategy to produce a faster convergence of the algorithm to the optimal so-
lution of the problem. Repairing procedure repairs the infeasible points to
satisfy the feasible space F. The working procedure of the algorithm is de-
scribed in the following manner.
M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 399
The population vectors in the first generation are initialized randomly sat-
isfying the search space S (the lower and upper bounds), while elitist individual
is initialized by zero. The first sub-algorithm initially locating an initial feasible
point that satisfying all constraint with the desired precision, since the second
sub-algorithm needs at least one feasible point as reference point to enter the
evolution process.
µ.d d µ.d
8
While (z is infeasible) { < z1 ¼ c:x þ ð1 cÞ:fðtÞ
Create random point z as: z2 ¼ ð1 cÞ:x þ c:fðtÞ
:
Check feasibility where c ¼ ð1 þ 2lÞd l
}
The algorithm uses the objective function to evaluate fitness functions for
each individual. The algorithm applies tournament selection procedure/roulette
wheel selection to select the new population as previously discussed.
positions in all strings are identical. In this case, crossover will have no fur-
ther effect.
7. Application of OPFGA
The proposed algorithm (Fig. 3) were implemented on the six buses system,
which is depicted in Fig. 4, which taken from Ref. [10], where NB ¼ 6, number
of equality constraints ¼ 2NB ¼ 12 and number of variables ¼ 20.
Appendix A contains information on the six-bus sample power system.
The test results obtained via OPFGA was found subject to: load flow
convergence (DPp and DQp < :0001) which compared with those from the so-
lution of the classical economic dispatch and standard load flow (ED + LF)
and those published by Weber [10] and also the solution of the optimal solution
via simulated annealing (OPFSA)[8]. Where in OPFSA the optimal solution
was found subject to: load flow convergence (DPp and DQp < 0:01). Table 1
shows GA parameter used for this simulation with the precision parameter
used in this algorithm.
Table 1
The GA parameters
Population size 50
Mutation rate 0.01
Crossover rate 0.9
Crossover operator Single point
Selection operator Roulette wheel
Precision parameter 0.0001
User specified parameter 0.1
8. Results
Table 2 depicts the number of iterations and the large amount of computing
effort required to achieve the overall solution. This was expected due to GA is a
stochastic global search method. This code used for these studies was imple-
mented in C++ on Pentium III 450 MHz with 128 MB RAM computer.
As can be seen from Tables 3–5 a better ED was obtained without violating
line limits all lines have technical limit 100 MVA, except line 5 whose limit of
50 MVA [10].
9. Conclusions
Table 2
Computing effort
Iterations Time (s)
Six-bus system 200 31
M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 403
Table 3
Economic dispatch for the six-bus test system
Classical optimization Non-classical optimization
methods methods
ED + LF Weber OPFSA OPFGA
Unit 1 (MW) 99.74 160.39 131.80 152.3252
Unit 2 (MW) 216.17 133.39 190.98 151.6563
Unit 3 (MW) 50.00 143.00 109.15 1.180913
Unit 4 (MW) 250.00 169.00 178.24 1.870893
Cost ($/h) 7860 8062 7938 7987.176416
Losses (MW) 15.91 5.38 6.33 9.2088
Load flow convergence: <0.01 <0.0001
(DPp and DQp )
Violating quantities 2 0 0 0
Table 4
Load flow solution of the six-bus system
Bus Voltage Angle Generation Demand
MW MVA MW MVA
1 1.001621 0.0 152.23252 84.7635 100 20
2 0.987467 1.717332 151.65663 )26.5032 100 20
3 1.010965 )4.203926 118.0913 112.1499 100 20
4 0.974785 )0.01340 187.0893 )25.6332 100 20
5 0.973218 )2.619713 0.0 0.0 100 50
6 0.967386 )4.438276 0.0 0.0 100 10
Table 5
Lines power flow of the six-bus system
Line From To P (MW) Losses (MW)
1 1 2 )15.2385 0.864
2 2 4 35.5621 0.5198
3 1 5 67.5701 1.9581
4 3 5 )7.9323 1.089
5 4 5 44.3846 0.9822
6 3 6 26.0327 0.9583
7 4 6 77.7561 2.8374
Overall losses 9.2088
to solve OPF. The method employs GA to get a feasible point that satisfy the
equality constraints with the desired precision. Due to space limitation, this
paper only reports the results of a six-bus system; however, the approach in
general works for a general network for any number of buses.
OPFGA has the advantage not to calculate differential equations neither the
Jacobean matrix unlike classical methods. This fact permits the definition of
404 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405
Appendix A
Table A.1
Line characteristics for six-bus system
From bus To bus Resistance Reactance Line charging Line limit
[P.U] [P.U] [P.U] [MVA]
1 2 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
1 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
2 4 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
3 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
3 6 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
4 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 50
4 6 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
Table A.2
Bus characteristics for six-bus system
Bus number Load [MW] Load [MVAR] Min. generation [MW] Max. generation [MW]
1 100 20 50 250
2 100 20 50 250
3 100 20 50 250
4 100 20 50 250
5 100 50 0 0
6 100 10 0 0
M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 405
Table A.3
Economic information for six-bus system
Generator bus a ½h$ $
b ½MW h
c ½MW$ 2 h
1 105 12.0 0.012
2 96 9.6 0.0096
3 105 13.0 0.0130
4 94 9.4 0.0094
References
[1] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison
Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
[2] J. Gregory, Nonlinear programming FAQ, Usenet sci.answers. Available from ftp://
rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.answers/nonlinear-programming-faq, 1995.
[3] M. Gen, R. Cheng, Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization, John Wily & Sons,
New York, 2000.
[4] Z. Michalewicz, A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary computation
methods, in: Proceeding of the Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 135–155.
[5] Z. Michalewicz, Schoenauer, Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization
problems, Evolutionary Computation 4 (1) (1996) 1–32.
[6] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures ¼ Evolution Programs, third ed.,
Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[7] I.J. Nagrath, Modern Power System Analysis, Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[8] C.A. Roa-Sepulveda, B.J. Pavez-lazo, A solution to the optimal power flow using simulated
annealing, Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 47–57.
[9] W.D. Stevenson, Elements of Power System Analysis, fourth ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1982.
[10] J.D. Weber, Implementation of a Newton-based optimal power flow into a power system
simulation environment, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign; Urbana-Illinois. Available from http://energy.ece.uiuc.edu/jamie
(1997).
[11] A.J. Wood, B.F. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and Control, Wiley and Sons,
1996.