26

CHAPTER 2
MULTI-OBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHM (MOGA)
FOR OPTIMAL POWER FLOW PROBLEM INCLUDING
VOLTAGE STABILITY

2.1

INTRODUCTION
Voltage stability enhancement is an important task in power system

operation. Optimal Power Flow (OPF) can be used periodically to determine

the optimal settings of the control variables to enhance the stability level of
the system. In this work, the optimal power flow problem is formulated as a
multi-objective

optimization

problem

with

cost

minimization

and

maximization of static voltage stability margin as the objectives. L-index of

the load buses is used as the indicator of voltage stability.

When an

optimization problem involves more than one objective function, the task of
finding one or more optimum solutions is known as multi-objective
optimization (Deb 2001). Since classical search and optimization algorithms
use a point by point approach, the outcome of using a classical approach is a
single optimized solution. However, most real world problems involve
simultaneous optimization of several often mutually concurrent objectives.
For multi-objective optimization, the preference based approach requires
multiple runs as many times as the number of desired optimal solutions.
Multi- objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) is proposed in this chapter to
solve the multi-objective OPF problem.

27

2.2

VOLTAGE STABILITY INDEX

There are a number of methods proposed in the literature for

voltage stability evaluation. One such method is L-index proposed by Kessel

and Glavitch (1986). It is based on load flow analysis. Its value ranges from 0
(no load condition) to 1 (voltage collapse). The bus with the highest L-index
value will be the most vulnerable bus in the system. The L-index calculation
for a power system is briefly discussed below:
Consider a N-bus system in which there are Ng generators. The
relationship between the voltage and current can be expressed by the
following expression:

where

IG

YGG YGL

VG

IL

YLG YLL

VL

(2.1)

IG, IL and VG, VL

represent currents and voltages at the

generator buses and load buses.

Rearranging the above equation we get,

where

VL

Z LL F LG

IL

IG

K GL YGG

VG

FLG = - [YLL] -1 [YLG]

KLG = - [YLL]

-1

(2.2)

and

[YGL] are the sub matrixes of the above hybrid

matrix.
The L-index of the j-th node is given by the expression,

28
Ng

Lj

F ji
i 1

where

Vi
Vj

ji

(2.3)

Vi Voltage magnitude of i-th generating unit.

Vj Voltage magnitude of j-th generating unit.
ji

Phase angle of the term Fji.

Voltage phase angle of i-th generating unit.

Voltage phase angle of j-th generating unit.

Ng Number of generating units.

The values of Fji are obtained from the matrix FLG. The L
indices for a given load condition are computed for all the load buses and
the maximum of the L- indices (Lmax) gives the proximity of the system to
voltage collapse. It was demonstrated that when a load bus approaches a
voltage collapse situation, the L-index approaches one. Hence, for a systemwide voltage stability assessment, the L-index is evaluated at all the load
buses and the maximum value of the L indices gives an indication of how far
the system is from voltage collapse. Contingencies such as transmission lines
or generator outages often result in voltage instability in the power system.
The system is said to be secured if none of the contingencies causes voltage
instability in the system. The maximum L-index of the system under a
contingency gives a measure of the severity of that contingency.
2.3

PROBLEM FORMULATION
The OPF problem is to optimize the steady state performance of a

power system in terms of one or more objective functions while satisfying

several equality and inequality constraints. It is formulated as non linear
multi-objective optimization problem. The objectives considered here are

29

minimization of fuel cost and maximization of voltage stability margin. This

is achieved by proper adjustment of real power generation, generator voltage
magnitude, reactive power generation of capacitor bank and transformer tap
setting. Power flow equations are the equality constraints of the problems,
while the inequality constraints include the limits on real and reactive power
generation, bus voltage magnitudes, transformer tap positions and line flows.
The expression representing the objective functions and the constraints are
given below:
2.3.1

Objective functions
Here the goal is to determine the optimal values of generator active

power, generator bus bar voltages, transformer tap settings and reactive power
sources to enhance the system stability level while minimizing the fuel cost
and maximizing the voltage stability margin.
2.3.1.1

Minimization of fuel cost

The most commonly used objective in the OPF problem

formulation is the minimization of the total operation cost of the fuel

consumed for producing electric power within a scheduled time interval. The
individual costs of each generating unit are assumed to be the function only of
real power generation and are represented by quadratic curves of the second
order. The objective function for the whole power system network can be
expressed as the sum of the quadratic cost model at each generator as,
Ng

(a i Pgi2

Minimize FC

bi Pgi

c i ) $ / hr

i 1

where FC is the operating fuel cost of power system

ai,bi,ci are the cost coefficients of generator at bus i

(2.4)

30

Ng is the number of generating units.

2.3.1.2

Voltage stability margin

The other objective of the OPF problem is the maximization of the

voltage stability margin. This is achieved by minimizing the Lmax value. This
is stated as,
Minimize L max

(2.5)

The above objectives are subjected to the following equality and

inequality constraints.
2.3.2

Equality constraints
In a power system with NB buses, at each bus i, the sum of the total

injected real and reactive power must be equal to zero. The specified power is
equal to the difference between the power generation and the load. These
constraints are mathematically represented as:
NB

Pi

V j (G ij Cos

Vi

ij

Bij Sin

ij

0 ;i

Bij Cos

ij

) 0 ;i

NB 1

(2.6)

N PQ

(2.7)

j 1

NB

Qi

V j (G ij Sin

Vi

ij

j 1

The set of equations formed by equation (2.6) for all system buses
except the slack bus and equation (2.7) for all load buses constitute the load
flow equations. The load flow equation determine the steady state condition
of the power system network for specified generations and load patterns,
calculate voltages, phase angles and flows across the entire system. When
solving the power flow equations iteratively, successive solutions will have a

31

mismatch between the specified and the injected power. So equation (2.6) and
(2.7) will not be satisfied. Hence, a tolerance is specified for the power flow
solutions.
2.3.3

Inequality constraints
The inequality constraints reflect the limits on physical device in the

power system as well as the limits created to ensure security.The inequality

constraints which are generally considered are upper and lower bus voltage
limits, maximum line loading limits and limits on tap settings.
(i)

Voltage limits
Too high or too low voltage magnitudes could cause problems to the

end user power apparatus or instability in the power system. The voltage
magnitude constraint is expressed as:
Vi min

(ii)

Vi

Vi max

;i

NB

(2.8)

Generator reactive power capability limit

The reactive power of a generator is an important measure of voltage

magnitude quality, e.g. a low voltage indicates a local shortage of reactive

power. The upper and lower reactive power limits are specified as:
Q gimin

(iii)

Q gi

max
Q gi

;i

Ng

(2.9)

Capacitor reactive power generation limit

The reactive power generation of capacitor bank has a maximum

generating capacity, above which it is not feasible to generate due to technical

32

or economical reasons. Capacitive reactive power generation limits are

usually expressed as maximum and minimum reactive power outputs as:
Q cimin

(iv)

Q ci

Q cimax

;i

Nc

(2.10)

Transformer tap setting limit

The flow of real power along the transmission line is determined

by the angle of difference of the terminal voltages and the flow of reactive
power is determined mainly by the magnitude difference of terminal voltages.
The value is modified in the search procedure among the existing tap
positions and expressed as:
t kmin

(v)

tk

t kmax

;k

NT

(2.11)

Transmission line flow limit

The maximum MVA values for transmission lines and transformers

are given due to limitations of the branch material. Excessive power would
damage the transmission elements. This is stated as an inequality constraint
as:
Sl

S lmax

;l

Nl

(2.12)

The equality constraints are satisfied by running the power flow

program. The active power generation (Pgi) (except the generator at the slack
bus), generator terminal bus voltages (Vgi), transformer tap settings (tk) and the
reactive power generation of the capacitor bank (Qci) are the control variables
and they are self restricted by the optimization algorithm. The active power
generation at slack bus (Pgs), load bus voltage (Vload) and reactive power
generation (Qgi) are the state variables, and they are restricted by adding a
quadratic penalty term to the objective function. Aggregating the objectives

33

and constraints, the problem can be mathematically formulated as a multiobjective non- linear constrained problem as follows:
Minimize F T

[ F C , Lmax ]

(2.13)

subject to the constraints (2.6) (2.12).

2.4

MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
Many real world problems involve the simultaneous optimization

of several objective functions. Generally, these functions are noncommensurable and often conflicting objectives.
In general, a multi-objective optimization problem is formulated as
follows:
Min / Max f i ( x)

g j ( x)

Subject to:
where

0 , j 1,. . .M

hk ( x) 0 , k

fi

i 1. . . N obj

1, . . . K

(2.14)

(2.15)

is the ith objective function.

x is the decision vector that represents a solution

Nobj is the number of objectives
M and K are the numbers of equality and inequality constraints.
Multi-objective optimization with such conflicting objective
functions give rise to a set of optimal solutions, instead of one optimal
solution. The reason for the optimality of many solutions is that no one can be
considered to be better than any other with respect to all objective functions.
These optimal solutions are known as Pareto-Optimal solutions.

34

Multi-objective optimization uses a concept of domination by

comparing between two solutions. If a feasible solution is not dominated by
any other feasible solutions of the multi-objective optimization problem, a
solution is said to be a non-dominated solution. The following procedure can
be adopted to find a set of non dominated solutions. x(1) dominates x(2) if
x(1) is no worse than x(2) in all objectives and x(1) is strictly better than x(2)
in at least one objective. Solution x(1) is said to dominate x(2) or x(1) is said
to be non-dominated by x(2) if both conditions are true (Deb 2001).
Dominance is an important concept in multi-objective optimization.
In case of a two objective minimization problem (f1 and f2) f1 is said to
dominate f2 if no component of f1 is greater than the corresponding
component of f2 and at least one component is smaller. Accordingly, we can
say that a solution x1 dominates x2, if f(x1) dominates f(x2). A set of optimal
solutions in the decision space which are not dominated by other solutions, is
called Pareto set and its image on the objective space is called Pareto front.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the main concept of Pareto optimality for
sample two objective min-min problems. The data for this figure is taken
from the following reference Deb (2001). The set of non- dominated solution
is referred as Pareto optimal front. Pareto optimal points are also known as
non- dominated or non- inferior points that are in the relationship of trade- off
solutions.

35

Dominated
solutions

f2 (minimize)
Pareto front
Pareto Solutions

f1 (minimize)

Figure 2.1: Main concept of Pareto optimality

In general, the goal of a multi-objective optimization algorithm is
not only guide the search towards the Pareto-optimal front but also maintain
population diversity in the set of non-dominated solutions. The commonly
applied methods for solving the multi-objective optimization algorithm are
weighted sum method, -constraint method and goal programming methods.
Some of the difficulties associated with the classical optimization methods are
as follows:
An algorithm has to be applied many times to find multiple
Pareto-optimal solutions.
Most algorithms demand some knowledge about the problem
being solved.
Some algorithms are sensitive to the shape of the Paretooptimal front.
The spread of Pareto-optimal solutions depends on efficiency
of the single objective optimizer.

36

Recently, the studies on evolutionary algorithms have shown that

these algorithms can be efficiently used to eliminate most of the difficulties of
classical methods
2.4.1

Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)

Genetic algorithms (Goldberg 1989) are search algorithms based on

the principle of natural genetics and evolution. They combine solution

evaluation with randomized, structured exchanges of information between
solutions to obtain optimality. Starting with an initial population, the genetic
algorithm exploits the information contained in the present population and
explores new individuals by generating offspring using the three genetic
operators namely, reproduction, crossover and mutation which can then
replace members of the old generation. Genetic algorithms maintain a
population of solution structures throughout the process; therefore they are
not limited by the solution of initial guesses. In this way the entire solution
space may be explored and multiple solutions detected. Evaluation of the
individuals in the population is accomplished by calculating the objective
function value of the problem using the parameter set. The result of the
objective function calculation is used to calculate the fitness value of the
individual. Fitter chromosomes have higher probabilities of being selected for
the next generation. After several generations, the algorithm converges to the
best chromosome, which hopefully represents the optimum or near optimal
solution. Genetic Algorithms have proven to be a useful approach to address
a wide a variety of optimization problems. Being a population-based
approach, GA is well suited to solve the multi-objective optimization
problems. In this work, multi-objective genetic algorithm is applied to solve
the multi-objective OPF problem. Figure 2.2 shows the flow chart of the GAbased algorithm for solving the optimization problem.

37

Initialize the population

Run the load flow program

Evolution (fitness assignment)

Set i=1

Selection, crossover and

mutation
Form the new population

Run the load flow program

Evolution (Fitness
Assignment)

No
i=i+1

Meeting the
stopping rule
Yes
Output

Figure 2.2 Flow chart of GA approach

38

2.4.2

Algorithm of MOGA
MOGA is an extension of the classical GA (Fonseca and Fleming.

1995). The main difference between a conventional GA and a MOGA lies in

the assignment of fitness to an individual. The rest of the algorithm is the
same as that in a classical GA. The details of the MOGA are described below:
In a MOGA, first, each solution is checked for its domination in the
population. To a solution i, a rank equal to one plus the number of solutions
i that

dominate solution i is assigned:

ri = 1+

(2.16)

In this way, non-dominated solutions are assigned a rank equal to 1,

since no solution would dominate a non-dominated solution in a population.
Once the ranking is performed, a raw fitness to a solution is assigned based on
its rank. To perform this, first the ranks are sorted in the ascending order of
magnitude. Then a raw fitness is assigned to each solution by using a linear
(or any other) mapping function. Usually, the mapping function is chosen so
as to assign the fitness between N (for the best rank solution) and 1 (for the
worst rank solution). Thereafter, the solutions of each rank are considered at a
time and their raw fitnesss are averaged. This average fitness is now called
the assigned fitness to each solution of the rank. This emphasizes the nondominated solutions in the population. In order to maintain the diversity
among non-dominated solutions, niching among solutions of each rank are
introduced. The niche count is found with the following equation
( ri )

(2.17)

Sh (d ij )

nc i
j 1

where

(ri ) is the number of solutions in rank ri and

function of the two solutions i and j.

Sh (d ij )

is the sharing

39

The sharing function

Sh (d ij )

is calculated using the objective

function value as the distance metric,

1 (

Sh (d ij )

d ij

if d ij

share

share

share

(2.18)

otherwise

is the sharing parameter which signifies the maximum

distance between any two solutions before they can be considered to be in the
same niche .
is a scaling factor less than or equal to 1.
d ij

is the normalized distance between two solutions i and j in a

rank, and is calculated using

(i )

d ij
k 1

where

fk

f kmax

( j)

fk

f kmin

(2.19)

fkmax and fkmin are the maximum and minimum objective function

value of the kth objective.

The shared function takes a value in [0, 1] depending on the values
of dij and

share.

The shared fitness value is calculated by dividing the

assigned fitness to a solution by its niche count. Although all solutions of any
particular rank have an identical fitness, the shared fitness value of a solution
residing in a less crowded region has a better shared fitness. This produces a
large selection pressure for poorly represented solutions in any rank. Hence
with scaling factor value equal to 1 compute the sharing function value and
niche count for all population members using the equation (2.17) and (2.18).
Thus, it is clear that in a population, a solution may not get any sharing effect

40

from some solutions and may get partial sharing effect from few solutions and
will get a full effect from itself. It is important to note that niche count is
always greater than or equal to 1. Then calculate the shared fitness
using F j'

Fj
nc j

.Dividing the assigned fitness value by the niche count

reduces the fitness of each solution. In order to keep the average fitness of the
solutions in a rank the same as that before sharing, these fitness values are
scaled using equation (2.20) so that their average shared fitness value is the
same as the average assigned fitness value.
F jsc

F j (r )
(r )

F j'

(2.20)

F k'
k 1

where

F j'

is the shared fitness and

(r ) is

the number of solutions in rank ri.

This procedure is continued until all ranks are processed.

Thereafter, selection, crossover and mutation operators are applied to create a
new population. With each individual represented as a string of integers and
floating point numbers, selection process remains the same as the classical
GA, but the crossover and mutation operators are applied variable by variable.
Here, fitness proportionate selection and non-uniform mutation are used for
genetic operation.
2.5

GA IMPLEMENTATION
When applying GA to solve a particular optimization problem,

three main issues needs to be addressed:

(i)

Representation of the decision variables

(ii) Fitness evaluation

(iii) Application of genetic operators
These issues are explained in the subsequent section.

41

2.5.1

Representation of the decision variables

While solving optimization problems using the MOGA, each

individual in the population represents a candidate solution. In the optimal

power flow problem, the elements of the solution consist of the control
variables, namely; Generator active power (Pgi), Generator bus voltage (Vgi),
reactive power generated by the capacitor (Qci), and transformer tap settings
(tk). These variables are represented in their natural form, that is generator
active power, generator

bus voltage magnitude, and reactive power

generation of capacitor are represented as floating point numbers, whereas,

the transformer tap setting, being a discrete quantity with tapping ranges of
10% and a tapping step of 0.025 p.u is represented by (0, 1, .8). With this
representation, a typical chromosome for the optimal power flow problem
looks as:

97.5 100.8 ... 250.70 0.981 0.970

Pg 2

Pg 3

Pgn

Vg 1

Vg 2

1 4 3
Vgn Qc1 Qc 2

4 2 1
Qcn t1 t 2

3
tk

Binary coded GA discretizes the search space by using a coding of

the problem variables in binary strings. However, the coding of real valued
variables in finite length strings causes the inability to achieve arbitrary
precision in the obtained solution, fixed mapping of problem variables and
inherent hamming cliff problem associated with binary coding. While
presenting the discrete variables using binary strings, if the number of values
is not a power of 2, then some of the binary codes will be redundant and so
they should be taken care of through some remapping operation. This may
deteriorate the performance of the algorithm. Hence to overcome these
difficulties the decision variables are represented in their natural form. Thus
the use of floating point numbers and integers to represent the solution
alleviates the difficulties associated with the binary-coded GA for real
variables (Herrera et.al.1998). Also, with the direct representation of the

42

solution variables, the computer space required to store the population is

reduced.
2.5.2

Fitness Evaluation
Genetic algorithm searches for the optimal solution by maximizing

a given fitness function, and therefore an evaluation function which provides

a measure of the quality of the problem solution must be provided. Each
individual in the population is evaluated according to its fitness which is
defined as the non-negative figure of merit to be maximized. It is associated
mainly with the objective function. In the OPF problem here the objective is
to minimize the operating cost and Lmax of the system simultaneously while
satisfying the equality and inequality constraints. GAs are essentially
unconstrained search procedures in the given representation space. For each
individual, the equality constraints are satisfied by running the power flow
program. The active power generation (Pgi) (except the generator at the slack
bus), generator terminal bus voltages (Vgi) are the control variables and they
are self restricted by the optimization algorithm. The limit on active power
generation at the slack bus (Pgs), load bus voltages (Vload), reactive power
generation (Qgi) and line flow (Sl) are satisfied through the penalty approach.
The penalty terms for the slack bus generator active power limit violation
(PSK), load bus voltage-limit violation,(PViK), reactive power generation limit
violation,(PQgK), and line flow limit violation (PLlK)

are defined by the

following equations:

PS K

K S PS K

PS max

, if PS K

PS max

K S PS K

PS max

, if PS K

PS min

, otherwise

(2.21)

43

PVi K

KV Vi K

Vi max

, if Vi k

Vi max

KV Vi K

Vi min

, if Vi k

Vi min

PQ gK

, otherwise

K q Q gK

Q gmax

, if Q gk

Q gmax

K q Q gK

Q gmin

, if Q gk

Q gmin

where

(2.23)

, otherwise

K l S lK

PLKl

(2.22)

S lmax

, if S lk

S lmax

(2.24)

, otherwise

KS, Kv, Kq, and Kl are the penalty factors for the slack bus power

output, bus voltage limit violation, generator reactive power limit violation
and line flow violation respectively. Thereafter, all the penalty terms are
added together to get the overall penalty function.

K 0 i 1

NC

Nl

PLK
l

PQ iK

PVi K

PSK
K 0

NC N g

NC N P Q

NC

PF

K 0 i 1

(2.25)

K 0 l 1

The penalty function is added to each of the objective functions to get

the new objective functions. The GA is usually designed to maximize the fitness
function, which is a measure of the quality of each candidate solution. Hence, in
this work, the fitness is taken as the inverse of the new objective function.
2.5.3

Genetic Operators
The GA uses three main operating schemes namely, selection,

crossover and mutation.

2.5.3.1

The Selection Scheme

Selection is a method which stochastically picks individuals from

the population according to their fitness; the higher the fitness, the more

44

chance an individual has to be selected for the next generation. There are a
number of methods proposed in the literature for the selection operation.
Fitness proportionate selection is used in this work. Fitness proportionate
selection (Eshelman and Schaffer 1993), also known as roulette-wheel
selection, is a genetic operator used in genetic algorithms for selecting
potentially useful solutions for recombination. In this approach, the fitness
level is used to associate a probability of selection with each individual
chromosome. If fi is the fitness of the individual i in the population, its
probability of being selected is

Pi

fi

(2.26)

fj
j 1

where N is the number of individuals in the population. This could be

imagined to be similar to a roulette wheel in a casino. Usually a proportion of
the wheel is assigned to each of the possible selections based on their fitness
value. This could be achieved by dividing the fitness of a selection by the
total fitness of all the selections, thereby normalizing them to 1. Then, a
random selection is made similar to how the roulette wheel is rotated. While
candidate solutions with a higher fitness are less likely to be eliminated, there
is still a chance that they may be eliminated. With fitness proportionate
selection there is a chance that some weaker solutions may survive the
selection process; this is an advantage, since though a solution may be weak,
it may include some component which could prove useful following the
recombination process. The analogy to a roulette wheel can be envisaged by
imagining a roulette wheel in which each candidate solution represents a
pocket on the wheel; the size of the pockets are proportionate to the
probability of selection of the solution. Selecting N chromosomes from the
population is equivalent to playing N games on the roulette wheel, as each
candidate is drawn independently.

45

2.5.3.2

The Crossover Scheme

The crossover operator is mainly responsible for bringing diversity

in the population. Crossovers for real parameter GAs have the interesting
feature of having tunable parameters that can be used to modify their
exploration power. In the proposed approach each individual in the population
consists of two types of variables: real and integer. Hence a two-part
crossover which takes advantage of the special structure of the problem
representation was developed. First, the two parents are represented on the
floating point and integer parts. The BLX (Blended crossover operator)
(Eshelman and Schaffer 1993, Devaraj 2005, 2010) is used for real variables
and the standard single point crossover is applied for the integer part. Figure
2.3 represents the BLX- crossover operation for the one dimensional case. In
the figure, u1 and u2 are the selected individuals and umin and umax are the
lower and upper limits respectively and I= (u2-u1). In the BLX- crossover,
the offspring (y) is sampled from the space [e1, e2] as follows:

e1

repeat

(e 2

e 1 ) ; if u

min

(2.27)

max

sampling ; otherwise

where :
where :

(u 2

u1 )

e1

u1

e2

u2

(u 2

uniform

random

u1 )
number

[0 ,1 ]

u max

u min
e2

e1

u1

u2

Figure 2.3 Schematic representation of the BLX-

Crossover

46

In a number of test problems, the investigators have observed that

= 0.5 provides good results. In this crossover operator the location of the
offspring depends on the difference in parent solutions. If both parents are
close to each other, the new point will also be close to the parents. On the
other hand, if the parents are far from each other, the search is more like a
random search. This property of a search operator allows us to constitute an
adaptive search.
2.5.3.3

The Mutation Scheme

The mutation operator is used to inject new genetic material into

the population. Mutation randomly changes the new offspring. In this work,
the Non Uniform Mutation operator (Deb 2001) is applied to the mixed
variables with some modifications.

First a variable is selected from an

individual randomly. If the selected variable is a real number, it is set to a

uniform random number between the variables lower and upper limits. i.e, if
the selected variable is uk with the range |ukmin, ukmax| , two random numbers
are generated and the result u1k is calculated as

uk

1 p
1 M

1 p
M

u max

uk . 1 r

uk

u 1k
uk

where

u min . 1 r1

if r1

0.5
(2.28)

if r1

0.5

p is the generation number,

q is a non uniform mutation parameter and
M is the maximum generation number.
On the other hand, if the selected variable is an integer, the

randomly generated floating point number is truncated to the nearest integer.

47

After mutation, the new generation is complete, and the procedure begins
again with the fitness evaluation of the population.
2.6

SIMULATION RESULTS
The proposed GA approach for solving the optimal power flow

optimization problem was applied to the IEEE 30-bus test system. Figure 3.4
represent the schematic diagram of the IEEE 30-bus system. The IEEE 30bus system has 6 generator buses, 24 load buses and 41 transmission lines of
which four branches are (6-9),(6-10),(4-12) and (28-27) with tap setting
transformers. The upper and lower voltage limits at all buses except the slack
bus are taken as 1.10 p.u and 0.95 p.u respectively. The slack bus voltage is
fixed at its specified value of 1.06 p.u. The generator cost coefficients and the
line parameters are taken from Alsac and Scot (1974).

Figure 2.4 IEEE 30-bus system

48

The possible locations for reactive power sources are buses 10, 12,
15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 29. Two different cases were considered for
simulation and the results are presented.
Case (i): OPF using GA
Here the GA-based algorithm was applied to identify the optimal
control variables of the system under base-load condition, with cost
minimization objective and without considering the voltage stability of the
system. The upper and lower voltage limits at all the busbars except the slack
bus were taken as 1.10 and 0.95 respectively. The slack busbar voltage was
fixed to its specified value 1.06 p.u. Here the contingencies are not considered
and the GA- based algorithm was applied to find the optimal scheduling of
the power system for the base case loading condition given in (Alsac and Scot
1974). Generator active power outputs, generator bus voltages, transformer
tap settings and reactive power generation of capacitor bank were taken as the
optimization variables. The optimization variables are represented as floating
point numbers and integers in the GA population.
The initial population was randomly generated between the
variables lower and upper limits. Tournament selection was applied to select
the members of the new population. Blend crossover and mutation were
applied on the selected individuals. The performance of the GA generally
depends on the GA parameters used, in particular the crossover and mutation
probabilities in the ranges 0.6- 0.9 and 0.001 0.01 respectively was therefore
evaluated. It was run with different control parameter settings and the
minimization solution was obtained with the following parameter setting:
Population size

50

Crossover rate

0.9

Mutation rate

0.01

Maximum generations :

150

49

To illustrate the convergence of the algorithm, the relationship

between the best fitness value of the results and the average fitness are plotted
against the generation number in Figure 2.5. From the figure it can be seen
that the proposed method converges towards the optimal solution very
quickly. It can be seen that the fuel cost reduces rapidly in the first 10
generations of GA. During this stage, the GA mainly concentrates on finding
feasible solutions to the problem. Then the value decreases slowly and settles
down near the optimum value with the most of the individuals in the
population reaching that point. The proposed GA took 80 seconds to complete
the 150 generations. After 150 generations it was found that all the
individuals have reached almost the same fitness value. This shows that GA
has reached the optimal solution.
The optimal values of the control variables along with the
minimum cost obtained are given in Table 2.1. Corresponding to this control
variable setting, it was found that there are no limit violations in any of the
state variables. The minimum cost solution obtained by the proposed
approach and the minimum cost reported in the literature are presented in
Table 2.2. From the table it is found that the minimum cost obtained by the
proposed method is less than the values reported in many papers. This shows
the powerfulness of the proposed work.

50

Table 2.1 Results of GAOPF optimal control variables

Control variables

Variable setting

P1 (MW)

175.2070

P2 (MW)

48.5714

P5 (MW)

21.6667

P8 (MW)

22.6984

P11 (MW)

12.5397

P13 (MW)

12.0000

V1 (P.U)

1.0500

V2 (P.U)

1.0381

V5 (P.U)

1.0119

V8 (P.U)

1.0214

V11 (P.U)

1.0976

V13 (P.U)

1.0881

T11

0.9286

T12

0.9286

T15

0.9571

T36

0.9286

QC10 (MVAr)

2.8571

QC12 (MVAr)

4.2857

QC15 (MVAr)

4.2857

QC17 (MVAr)

5.0

QC20 (MVAr)

0.0

QC21 (MVAr)

5.0

QC23 (MVAr)

4.2857

QC24 (MVAr)

5.0

QC29 (MVAr)

5.0

Cost ($/hr)

802.0392

51

Figure 2.5

Convergence of the GAOPF algorithm for IEEE 30-bus test

system

Table 2.2 Comparison of the minimum cost obtained by different

methods for the IEEE30-bus system
Method
Gradient approach (Alsac, 1974)

Minimum cost ($/hr)

802.43

Hybrid evolutionary programming

(Yuryevich et.al. 1999)

802.62

Refined Genetic Algorithm

(Paranjothi et.al. 2002)

804.019

Evolutionary Programming
(Somasundaram et.al. 2004)

802.40

Improved Evolutionary programming

(Ongsakul et.al. 2006)

802.465

Proposed method

802.0392

52

Case (ii): OPF using MOGA

Next, the proposed algorithm was run with minimization of fuel
cost and maximization of voltage stability margin as the objectives. Fitness
proportionate selection was applied to select the members of new population.
Blend crossover and non uniform mutation were applied on the selected
individuals. The performance of GA generally depends on the GA control
parameter used, in particular, the crossover and mutation probabilities
respectively. It was applied by considering several sets of parameters in order
to enhance its capability to provide acceptable trade-offs close to the Pareto
optimal front. The optimal values of the MOGA were obtained with the
following parameter settings:
Generations

100

Population size :

50

Crossover rate

0.8

Mutation rate

0.01

Variable

25

Figure: 2.6 represent the Pareto-optimal front curve. It is worth

mentioning that the proposed approach produces nearly 25 Pareto optimal
solutions in a single run that have satisfactory diversity characteristics and
span over the entire Pareto optimal front. In the Pareto front, the extreme
points represent the minimum fuel cost and maximum voltage stability
margin. The values of the control variable corresponding to these extreme
solutions are given in Table: 2.3.Corresponding to this control variable, it is
found that there is no limit violation in any of the state variables. It can be
concluded that the proposed approach is capable of exploring more efficient
and non-inferior solutions of multi-objective optimization problem. It can be
observed that the non dominated solutions are diverse and well distributed
over the Pareto front. This shows the effectiveness of the proposed approach
in solving the optimal power flow problem.

53
0.115

0.11

0.105

0.1

0.095

0.09

0.085
800

805

810

815

820

825

830

Figure 2.6 Pareto Optimal Front for fuel cost vs Lmax

Table 2.3 Control variables for IEEE 30-bus system Extreme Solutions
Control
variables
P1 (MW)
P2 (MW)
P5 (MW)
P8 (MW)
P11 (MW)
P13 (MW)
V1 (P.U)
V2 (P.U)
V5 (P.U)
V8 (P.U)
V11 (P.U)
V13 (P.U)
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10 (MVAr)
QC12 (MVAr)
QC15 (MVAr)
QC17 (MVAr)
QC20 (MVAr)
QC21 (MVAr)
QC23 (MVAr)
QC24 (MVAr)
QC29 (MVAr)
Cost ($/hr)
Lmax

Minimum operating
cost solution
175.8663
49.0139
20.9582
22.3892
11.9904
12.5718
1.0548
1.0383
1.0097
1.0157
1.0904
1.0897
0.9750
0.9250
0.9750
0.9750
2
2
5
5
5
5
0
0
5
802.1208
0.1117

Maximum voltage stability

margin solution
143.9107
48.8388
21.1655
22.5546
16.5910
37.9159
1.0548
1.0406
1.0101
1.0127
1.0919
1.0899
0.9750
0.9250
0.9750
1
2
2
5
5
6
5
0
0
5
825.7458
0.0876

54

2.7

CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents a MOGA algorithm approach to obtain the

optimum values of the optimal power flow, including voltage stability

enhancement. Voltage stability enhancement is performed by the L-index
method. It has considered as an optimization criterion, the minimization of
fuel cost and the L-index value. The effectiveness of the proposed method is
demonstrated on the IEEE 30- bus system with promising results. The results
show that EAs are effective tools for handling multi-objective optimization
where multiple Pareto-optimal solutions can be found in one simulation run.
In addition, the diversity of the non-dominated solutions is preserved. The
proposed algorithm performed well when it was used to characterize the
Pareto optimal front of the multi-objective power flow problem. From the
simulation work, it is concluded that the MOGA performs better than the
other methods. This approach is able to generate high quality solutions, with
more stable convergence characteristics than simple genetic algorithms. It can
be concluded that the MOGA has the potential to solve different multiobjective power systems optimization problems.