Multi-Objective Design of Advanced Power Distribution Networks Using Restrictedpopulation-Based Multi-Objective Seekeroptimisation-Algorithm and Fuzzy-Operator

IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Research Article
Multi-objective design of advanced power

distribution networks using restrictedpopulation-based multi-objective seekeroptimisation-algorithm and fuzzy-operator
ISSN 1751-8687
Received on 5th August 2014
Revised on 6th January 2015
Accepted on 1st February 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2014.0757
www.ietdl.org
Deepak Kumar 1, Subhransu Ranjan Samantaray 1 , Innocent Kamwa 2

1
School of Electrical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, India

Power System and Mathematics, Hydro-Qubec/IREQ, Varennes, QC, Canada
E-mail: sbh_samant@yahoo.co.in
Abstract: This study proposes a method for designing advanced power distribution system (PDS) including distributed
generations, using a combination of fundamental loop generator and multi-objective seeker-optimisation algorithm
(MOSOA). The proposed approach reduces the searching space using fundamental loop generator technique to obtain
initial feasible solutions which is further improved by SOA to generate new set of solutions with improved aptitude.
The proposed methodology uses a contingency-load-loss-index for reliability evaluation, which is independent of the
estimation of failure rate and fault repair duration of feeder branches. This planning strategy includes distribution
automation devices such as automatic reclosers (RAs) to enhance the reliability of PDS. The proposed algorithm
generates a set of non-dominated solution by simultaneous optimisation of two conflicting objectives (economic cost
and system reliability) using Pareto-optimality-based trade-off analysis including a fuzzy-operation to automatically
select the most suitable solution over the Pareto-front. The performance of the proposed approach is assessed and
illustrated on 54-bus and 100-bus PDS, considering realtime design practices. Extensive comparisons are made against
some well-known and efficient MO algorithms such as fast non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II, MO particleswarm-optimisation and MO immunised-particleswarm-optimisation. Simulation results show that the proposed
approach is accurate and efficient, and a potential candidate for large-scale PDS planning.
List of acronyms:
SP
PQ
SAIFI
SAIDI
CAIDI
ASAI
ASUI
MAIFI
CAIFI
NDL
LP
NOL
Spacing
Active and reactive power.
System average interruption frequency index.
System average interruption duration index.
Customer average interruption duration index.
Average Service Availability Index.
Average Service Unavailability Index.
Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index.
Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index.
Non-delivered load.
Load point.
Number of lines.
Introduction
Planning of an optimal power distribution system (PDS) involves the

simultaneous optimisation of frequently competing multiple objectives
such as minimisation of installation cost of new facilities (such as
substations, feeders etc.), minimisation of operational cost (such as
maintenance and energy loss cost) and maximisation of system
reliability to design an efcient, cost effective and reliable network [112].
Almost all the practical problems arising in advanced PDS (APDS)
planning involves a non-linear, non-convex, non-differentiable,
constrained optimisation problem with integer and continuous
decision variables. Research works [13], reported using classical
optimisation techniques such as direct search approach [1], branch
and bound algorithm [2] and graph theoretical approach [3] etc. for
designing PDS. However, these classical techniques have limited
scope in practical applications as almost all the practical problems
involve objective function that are non-linear, non-convex and
non-differentiable in nature. In this regard, the heuristic-based
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
algorithms (mono- or multi-objective (MO)) [58] have distinct

advantages such that it can handle such complex problems and also
they do not require any gradient information. After this pioneering
work, other MO evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) have been
proposed and applied to various problems [915].
In references [915], a MO deterministic algorithm [9] and a
fuzzy-based model [10] have proposed, which simultaneously
minimises system expansion cost and maximise network reliability to
obtain the set of MO non-dominated solution, using an evolutionary
algorithm and a powerful meta-heuristic Tabu search algorithm,
respectively. However, fuzzy models provides more realistic
representation of the PDS load demands; since the intrinsic uncertainty
of future demands is included in such model through suitable fuzzy
variables. Moreover, some of the algorithms employed genetic
algorithm (GA) in a conventional way [11]; however, it results
inefcient for such class of problem as noted by the references [12, 13],
it uses GA with conventional operators plus a local search operator,
which is based on mathematical programming techniques. Towards this
work, an another kind of problem specic GA is employed [14], that
uses a problem structure of a planner tree graph for building efcient
genetic operators that allow genetic population diversity and avoid
solution infeasibility.
The MO approach aims to design PDS by optimising all objective
functions simultaneously, based on the Pareto-front to yield
non-dominated solutions [915]. Moreover, most of these
heuristic-based approaches have taken average failure rates and the
repair durations of all the feeder branches for evaluation of reliability
based on expected energy not served (EENS) [513] as seen by
utilities, is used to optimise network reliability. These reliability
objectives are basically functions of failure rate and fault repair
duration of each feeder branch. Hence, they are generally optimised
by choosing the branch conductor sizes with lower failure rates.
However, practically it is very difcult to estimate the actual failure
rates of the feeder branches as the occurrence of faults take place
because of various unpredictable non-technical reasons, such as short

circuit because of contact of tree branches, animals etc. Moreover, the
fault repair duration varies with the location and severity of the fault.
Thus, the formulation of the reliability evaluation using average
failure rate and fault repair duration may suffer from considerable
inaccuracy. To alleviate this problem, a reliability index based on
contingency-load-loss index (CLLI) [15, 16] is proposed which is
independent of the estimation of actual failure rate and repair rate of
the branches. To prevent the system from momentary faults,
simultaneous placement of automatic reclosers (RAs) has been also
done to enhance the overall system reliability by automatically
restoring power to the line after a momentary fault.
The proposed MO seeker-optimisation-algorithm (MOSOA) is
used to design an APDS [17]. A wide range of objectives and
variety of constraints are suggested in the literature for optimal
design of PDS, such as loss reduction, total system cost
(interruption cost, xed cost and cost of losses), reliability
improvement based on EENS etc. This paper has considered the
primary objectives that have led to an increasing interest while
designing APDS, that is, minimisation of the overall system cost
(investment cost, operational cost and maintenance cost) and CLLI
index (minimisation of CLLI signies maximisation of system
reliability). In practice, there are varieties of distributed generations
(DGs) available in the market, some of them are variable power DG
sources such as wind and photovoltaic (PV). In practical, the site of
such variable power DG sources is determined based on
geographical and meteorological factors. However, DG sources
having xed output power such as micro-turbines, and fuel cells,
can be placed at any bus in the distribution network (DN) for
optimal operation [1820]. Feasibility of the proposed technique is
validated on two test systems (54-bus and 100-bus test systems) and
is compared against some of the well-known and efcient MO
techniques such as non-dominated sorting GA-II (NSGA-II) [21],
MO particle-swarm-optimisation (MOPSO) [22] and MO
immunised particle-swarm-optimisation (MOIPSO) [22]. However,
most of the literatures on Pareto-front only show the non-dominated
and the best solution without comparing the quality assessment of
the obtained results. The quality comparison should be made
between different MO algorithms in order to select the most
effective one; otherwise, it may lead to a non-optimal solution at hand.
To make sure that the proposed algorithm performs better, the
comparison is made based on qualitative observation by plotting the
Pareto-front and considering comparison metrices known as
convergence metric (C-metric), spacing metric (SP-metric) and
diversity metric (D-metric) [23, 24]. Obtained results show that the
proposed MOSOA performs much better than other MO approaches.
Some of the contributions of this paper can be summarised as follows:
A new version of MOSOA is introduced. The MOSOA, an MO
approach is proposed, which incorporates the property of human
searching behaviour based on their memory experience, uncertainty
reasoning and communication with each other [13]. Elitism is also
provided in MOSOA by combining the offspring population with
the current generation population. On the other hand, NSGA-II,
MOPSO and MOIPSO are developed for comparison purpose.
Fundamental loop generator: A graph theory approach is adapted
in this paper to obtain initial feasible solutions, which restricts
unwanted solutions. This allows reduction of computational time
and minimises memory requirements.
The voltage dependency of loads is also taken into consideration
to provide practical outcome.
The comparison is made qualitatively by plotting the Pareto-fronts
and considering comparison metrices (C-metric, SP-metric and
D-metric). Quality comparison should be made between different
MO algorithms; otherwise, this will result to non-optimal solution.
In this paper, the box-plot and t-test tools are also shown to
quantify the quality of the obtained solutions by MOSOA
compared with NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO.
This paper is organised as follows: problem formulation (Section
2), description of the proposed MOSOA (Section 3), description of
NSGA-II and MOIPSO (Section 4), presentation of results and

discussion (Section 5), performance comparison of MOSOA with
other techniques (Section 6) and conclusions (Section 7).
Problem formulation
An MO optimisation (Pareto optimisation) problem (MOPs) is

associated with a D-dimensional decision space of objective function
U (X ) = {U1 (X ), U2 (X ), . . . , UM (X )} in the feasible set of
decision vector X where, M > 1. In MOPs instead of searching a
single optimal solution (a mono-objective constrained optimisation
problem), a set of non-dominated optimal solution is sought; these set
of solutions cannot be improved in any dimension without degrading
in at least one of the other objectives. Thus, the solution set of an
MOPs consist of all non-dominated solution and is known as Pareto
optimal set (front). Thus, minimisation of MOPs can be stated as
Minimise U (X ) = {U 1(X ), U 2(X ), ..., UM(X )}
where X = [X 1, X 2, ..., X D] [ <D is a point in the D-dimensional
decision space and U = {U 1, U 2, ..., UM)} [ VM is the objective
space with M minimisation objectives. In this paper, in order to carry
out the optimal MO design of PDS, the vectors of objective function
to be minimised is u = [u1, u2], where u1 is the objective function of
global economic cost and u2 is the objective function related to the
failure index of the DN.
2.1
Objective function 1
The overall annual cost (u1) representing the yearly investment costs
plus the yearly operational (variable) costs of the network, plus the
cost of maintenance per year including the cost of the energy
losses in the circuit branches, subject to equality as well as
inequality constraints, represents one of the main concerns in
planning the APDS. The cost minimisation problem can be
formulated as a mixed integer non-linear programming model, as
described in (1) [9]. The main innovation is integrating the
planning of DGs, RAs and cost associated with energy losses in
the planning model. Thus, the objective function u1 is dened as
u1 = CSystem = CFixed + CVariable + CMaintenance
(1)
where
CFixed =

[(CkF )b (Yk )b ] +
[(CDF )g (YD )g ]
D[ND g[Ng
k[NS b[Nb

[(Ci,F j )a (Yi, j )a ]
(i, j)[NF a[Na
[(Ci,F j )m (Yi, j )m ]
(i, j)[NF m[Nm
[[(Ci,F j )E ]a (Yi, j )a ]
(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[[(CkF )E ]b (Yk )b ]
k[NSE b[Nb
CVariable =

[(CkV )b (Xk )2b ]ta +

[(CDV )g (XD )2g ]ta
D[ND g[Ng
k[NS b[Nb

[(Ci,Vj )a {(Xi, j )2a + (X j, i )2a }]ta
(i, j)[NF a[Na
[{(Ci,Vj )E }a {(Xi, j )2a + (X j, i )2a }]ta
(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[{(CkV )E }b (Xk )2b ]ta
k[NSE b[Nb
CMaintenance =

[(Ci,Mj )a (Yi, j )a ]ta
(i, j)[NF a[Na
[[(Ci,Mj )E ]a (Yi, j )a ]ta
(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[(CDM )g (YD )g ]ta
Table 1 Different types of loads and exponent values [25]

Load types
constant
residential
commercial
industrial
0
0.92
1.51
0.18
0
4.04
3.4
6
D[ND g[N g

[(CkM )b (Yk )b ]ta
k[NS b[Nb

[[(CkM )E ]b (Yk )b ]ta
k[NSE b[Nb
where NFE is the set of routes (between buses) associated with

existing feeders in the initial network; NFP is the set of proposed
feeder routes to be built; NFR is the set of proposed routes
associated with selected routes for building feeders. Only the
feeder size is a variable; NF NFP NFR; NSE is the set of buses
associated with existing substation in the initial network; NSP is
the set of buses associated with proposed locations for building
substations; NSR is the set of buses associated with selected
locations for building substations; NS NSP NSR; ND is the set of
buses associated with proposed locations for building DGs; Nb is
the set of proposed substation sizes to be built; Ng is the set of
proposed DG sizes to be built; Na is the set of proposed feeder
sizes to be built; Nm is the set of proposed RA/circuit breaker (CB)
sizes to be built; (Xi, j )a is the power ow in kilovolt-amperes
(kVA), carried through route (i, j) NF associated with a feeder
size a, in the routes between buses i and j; (Xk)b,E is the power
ow in kVA, supplied from k NS associated with a proposed
substation of size b or with an existing (E) one; (XD)g is the power
ow in kVA, supplied from D ND associated with a proposed
DG of size g; C V(F) is the variable (xed) cost; C M is the
maintenance cost; ta is the analysis time in years; and (Yi, j )a is
equal to 1 if the feeder of size a associated with route (i, j) NFP
is built. Otherwise, it is zero; (Yk)b is equal to 1 if the substation
of size b associated with bus k NSP is built. Otherwise, it is zero;
(YD)g is equal to 1, if the DG with size g associated with bus D
ND is built. Otherwise, it is zero.
The objective function in (1) aims to minimise the investment
cost, that is, CFixed, where the rst four terms represent the asset
cost of reinforcing/constructing substations, deploying DGs,
building feeders and reinforcing RAs and CBs. The fth and sixth
terms show the asset cost associated with existing feeders of size a
and with existing substations of size b, respectively.
For variable cost component (CVariable), the rst two terms
represents variable cost associated with substation and DGs, which
mainly considers the cost associated with the fuel used. The third,
fourth and fth terms are the variable cost associated with
(proposed/existing) feeders of size a (it accounts for energy loss of
the system) and with existing substations of size b (fuel cost).
CMaintenance, it represents the maintenance cost per annum involved
with feeders (proposed/existing), DGs and the substations
(proposed/existing).
In the proposed planning, a PQ model of DGs has been
considered, which is working at a specied power factor of 0.85
lagging. In the DN, load pattern is always varying with time, but
in practice, it is not economically feasible to change the design of
PDS with changing load demand. Therefore, for planning purpose,
the design of APDS can be carried out based on yearly peak
demand [18]. In PQ model, DGs are considered as a negative
load. PV model of DGs are generally not preferred, in practice.
The PV model of DGs regulates the terminal bus voltage by
adjusting their reactive power output. As in PV model, in order to
raise the voltage level by injecting higher amount of reactive
power, may lead to high eld currents and overheating for the
generators, triggering the excitation limit and disconnecting the
generators from the network.
The penetration level of DGs is increasing in DN. Therefore DNs
are no longer passive in nature, and their characteristics become
similar to an active transmission network. Therefore considering

DGs while designing PDS is of great importance.
In this paper, practical voltage-dependent load models such as
constant power, residential, industrial and commercial type loads
have been adopted for investigations [25]. The load models can be
mathematically expressed as
Pi (V ) = Poi Vid
(2)
Qi (V ) = Qoi Vig
(3)
where Pi and Qi are the load active and reactive power consumptions
at bus i; Vi is the terminal voltage magnitude (per unit (pu)) at bus i;
Poi and Qoi are the active and reactive power operating points at bus i.
and are the real and reactive power exponents. Table 1 shows the
real and reactive power exponents used in the present work for
constant power, industrial, commercial and residential type loads
[25]. In practical cases, loads are not explicitly constant power,
industrial, commercial and residential; rather load class mix may
be seen by PDS depending on the nature of area being supplied.
Therefore a load class mix of constant power, industrial,
commercial and residential loads are also adopted in this paper.
2.2
Objective function 2
An original method has been developed in order to evaluate the

function u2 related to the DN reliability to carry out the optimal
MO design. The proposed PDS planning includes CLLI-based
reliability index which can be dened as the ratio of the average of
non-delivered load because of failure of all branches, taken one at
a time, to the total load. Thus, the objective function u2 can be
mathematically expressed as
u2 = CLLI =
NDLAvg.
=
LTotal
NF
NDLi /NF
LTotal
i=1
(4)
where NDLi is the non-delivered load because of fault in branch i;

NDLAvg. is the average non-delivered load; LTotal is the total load
in kVA.
The advantage of CLLI is that the information regarding the
failure rate and fault repair duration of the feeder branches are not
required to compute CLLI, whereas most of the system
performance indices (SAIFI, SAIDI, CAIDI, ASAI, ASUI, MAIFI
Fig. 1 Single feeder radial network with/without RA
Fig. 2 Multi-feeder radial network with two RA and a TS
and CAIFI etc.) [19] are calculated as the weighted averages of the
basic load point indices (failure rate and fault repair duration).
CLLI is calculated considering all single contingency events (all
branch failures, taken one at a time). However, robust operation of
a distribution system requires anticipation of unplanned multiple
contingencies that could lead to dramatic and costly blackouts.
They can provide planners and operators more condence in the
security of the system beyond N1 requirements [26], where N is
the total number of branches in the system. Furthermore, there is a
possibility of purposeful and malicious N k scenarios (where k is
the simultaneous fault of k branches); those have severe
consequences in the planning issue [26]. The occurrences of
simultaneous contingencies, such as simultaneous faults in two or
more branches are not considered in this planning work as the
frequency of occurrence of such faults are very small for any
practical distribution system.
Two cases have been considered for the computation of CLLI.
Case 1: Single feeder radial conguration with RA in branch

between buses 6 and 12 in the presence of DG at bus 3.
Case 2: Two feeder radial conguration with RAs located
between buses (4, 5) and (10, 11) and one tie switch (TS, a
normally open switch) between buses 6 and 12, and considering
DG at bus 3.
A small DN is considered (Fig. 1), with one substation and 12 load
buses. Each load bus has a consumption of 100 kW. Each DG
capacity is considered to be 200 kW. Under no DG case, from
Fig. 1, if RA is not connected between buses (6, 12); for a fault at
any branch in the DN, the CB will isolate all the load buses from
the supply. Thus, the total NDL will be 1200 kW. Since any
branch fault causes the same total NDL, the average NDL for all
the branch fault, taken one at a time is 1200 kW. Thus, the CLLI
of this network is one (maximum possible value) which represents
the least reliable network from the non-delivered load point of
view. Now, if DG is connected at bus 3 having capacity of 200
kW, the total non-delivered load will reduce from 1200 to 1000
kW, and the CLLI will become 0.83, with an improvement of
17% with, without DG case.
Now if RA is placed between buses 6 and 12, and if DG is not
present, then for a fault in any branch of Section 2, RA will open,
to maintain the supply to Section 1 resulting an NDL of only six
load points with a total load capacity of 600 kW. However, if the
fault occurs in Section 1, it causes the complete blackout of the
system, in the absence of DG, thus the total NDL becomes 1200
kW. As each section has six LPs, the total NDL is ((6 1200 +
6 600)/12 = 900 kW) and the CLLI of this network is 0.75.
However, in the presence of DG at bus 3, for a fault at any branch
in Section 2, results the same total non-delivered load of 600 kW.
However, for a fault at any branch in Section 1, the total NDL will
be 1000 kW, because DGs can serve maximum of 200 kW load.
As each section has six LPs, the total NDL will be ((6 1000 +
6 600)/12 = 800 kW) and the CLLI of this network is 0.67, with
an improvement of 10.67%, with, without DG case.
Fig. 3 Flowchart for calculation of CLLI index in presence of DGs
Similarly, for two feeder radial conguration with two RAs and
one DG at bus 3 as shown in Fig. 2 (TS being open), the CLLI
will be 0.33, with an improvement of 12% (0.375: without DG
and 0.33: with DG) in comparison with, without DG. Thus, this
network is more reliable than the single feeder radial network.
Now, if TS is closed and DG is present at bus 3, it forms a loop
conguration and it causes the most reliable network with CLLI
index of 0.23. Flowchart for calculation of CLLI index for the
aforementioned two cases is shown in Fig. 3.
Thus, the loop network shows higher reliability as compared with
other congurations. Power utilities such as Hong Kong Electric
Company, Singapore power etc. have adopted closed-loop
congurations to serve their consumers with high reliability.
However, the loop conguration possesses high cost as compared
with the radial congurations because of more number of circuit
branches, and more CBs or switchgears for higher short-circuit
level. Thus, from several past decades the PDS conguration has
been typically designed in radial form for easy access and control,
lower protection cost and operational convenience [15]. The MO
problem can be formulated as
Min f = [CSystem , CLLI]
(a) The capacity constraint limits of the distribution lines: power ow

through any distribution feeder between buses i and j, must comply
with the thermal capacity of the line
S(i, j) S(i, j)max
(6)
where S(i, j )max is the maximum thermal capacity of the distribution

line between buses i and j.
(b) Substation capacity limit of the distribution system
(7)
max
Qmin
SS, i QSS, i QSS, i
(8)
max
min
max
min
In these inequalities, PSS,
i , PSS, i , QSS, i and QSS, i are the maximum
and minimum amount of active and reactive powers that can be
generated by the ith substation.
(c) DG capacity limits
min
max
PDG,
i PDG, i PDG, i
(9)
max
Qmin
DG, i QDG, i QDG, i
(10)
max
min
max
min
In these inequalities, PDG,
i , PDG, i , QDG, i and QDG, i are the maximum
and minimum amount of active and reactive powers that can be
generated by the ith DG unit.
(d) Bus voltage magnitude limits: The voltage magnitude limits in a
distribution system must be within the specied range
n [ N
(11)
where Vn is the voltage magnitude of the nth bus. N is the total

number of buses in a distribution system. V min and V max are the
minimum and maximum voltage magnitude limits, which are
considered to be 0.95 and 1.05, respectively.
N
PD (i) +
i=2
QSS =
N
N
OL
PLoss (n) PDG, i
(12)
QLoss (n) QDG, i
(13)
n=1
QD (i) +
i=2
NOL

n=1
where PSS and QSS are the total active and reactive power
generations from the substation of the distribution system, PD(i)
and QD(i) are the total active and reactive power demands at bus i,
NOL is the number of lines, PLoss(n) and QLoss(n) are the net
active and reactive power losses of line n connected between two
buses in a distribution system, PDG,i and QDG,i are the net active
and reactive powers ow from the ith DG.
(f) Network connectivity and radiality constraint of the distribution
system
NB = NN NSS
(14)
where NB is the number of branches, NN is the number of buses and

NSS is the total number of substations available in a distribution
system.
Summary of SOA for the MO design of PDS
This section introduces the basic concepts of SOA [17]; afterwards

the implementation of this algorithm for MO optimal planning of
PDS is described in detail.
3.1
Basics of SOA
Step 1: Initialisation process:
min
max
PSS,
i PSS, i PSS, i
f (X ) =
PSS =
(5)
The simultaneous minimisation of two objective functions is

subjected to some technical constraints, which are:
V min Vn V max ;
(e) Power conservation limits: In a distribution system, the algebraic

sum of all incoming and outgoing powers including line losses and
power generated from DG units should be equal to zero
NEq
1. Dene the input data: Initialise the good acceptable initial set of
seekers of size NIS using fundamental loop generator that
preserves the radiality operation, where each seeker represents one
radial conguration of dimension P, each dimension represents
one load bus. For each seeker, we have optimised RA positions
using binary coded GA (BCGA) (BCGA parameters are cross-over
rate of 0.8, mutation rate of 0.02 with a population size of 100 and
the evaluation was performed for 50 independent runs where each
run consists of 100 generations). Instead of placing the RAs
randomly in the network, we have optimised its position which
enables acceptable set of solutions, keeping all the system
constraints into consideration. At each step of the algorithm, it is
required that the set of system constraints (6)(14) should be
satised. To handle these constraints [27], convert the constraints
of MO problem to an unconstrained one using (15). In this paper,
in order to handle the constraints penalty factor method is used
(see (15))
where u1(X ) and u2(X ) are the objective functions related to cost and
reliability function as shown in (1) and (4), respectively. sk(X ) and
vk(X ) are the equality and inequality constraints, respectively. NEq
and NIEq are the number of equality and inequality constraints,
respectively. l1 and l2 are the penalty factors, respectively. The
values of the penalty factors are considered to be 5000. At rst,
backwardforward load ow method is used to evaluate the
objective function values (1) and (4) for each seeker, where each

NIEq
(sk (X )) + l2
(Max[0, vk (X )])
u1 (X ) + l1
k=1
k=1
f1 (X )

=
N
N
f2 (X )
Eq
IEq

(sk (X ))2 + l2
(Max[0, vk (X )])2
u2 (X ) + l1
k=1

(15)
k=1
seeker represents one radial topology and the constraints are

checked. Then, the augmented objective function (15) is calculated
using the values of functions and constraints. In this regard, each
control vector will be ned by these penalty factors, if any
constraint violation occurs, and thus these control vectors will be
deleted automatically in the next step.
2. Then, select the best seekers of size NND from the current
population of size NIS by performing fast non-dominated sorting
algorithm. To add a social component for sharing of information,
a neighbourhood is dened for each of the NND seekers. In the
present simulation, the population is randomly divided into NSP
subpopulations; all of the subpopulations have the same size while
all the seekers in the same subpopulation constitute a
neighbourhood.

Step 2: Search process: In SOA, search direction Si (t) = [Si1 ,
Si2 , . . . , Sip ] and a step length for each individual i at each
ai (t) = [ai1 , ai2 , . . . , aip ], where
iteration t with dimension P,
i (t) 0 and Si (t) { 1, 0, 1} are computed. Then position of the
ith seeker Xi = [Xi1, Xi2, , Xip] of size N ND , where N ND is the
total population size is updated as follows [17]
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + ai (t) Si (t)
i = 1, 2, . . . , N ND
(16)

Actual search direction of each individual, i, Si (t) is based on a
compromise among self-centric or egotistic behaviour,
group-centric behaviour and pro-activeness behaviour, whereas the
step length for an individual i at any dimension j is dened as

aij = sj log (rand(mi , 1)
(17)
where is a random vector corresponding to the search radius which

is determined as follows
sj = w (Xbest Xrand )
(18)
where Xbest is the position of the best seeker in the subpopulation to

which the jth seeker belongs. The weighting factor w is used to
decrease
the
step
length
towards
the
future
w min
)t, where t is the iteration number.
w(t) = w max (w maxt max
Step 3: Modication in existing SOA: When solving the
single-objective problems, all seekers intend at the same target and
are synchronously engrossed towards the optimum point. As a
result, shown in (18) can adaptively reect the aggregation
behaviours of the search population. However, for the complex
problems such as PDS planning problem, many seekers may be
stuck at a local optimum, and may deteriorate the algorithms
performance because it may sharply decrease with run time
increasing and cannot help the seekers escape from a local
optimum. To overcome this limitation, can be tuned from the
radius of the known region to the diameter of the known region
and is expressed as follows
sj = w (Xbest Xworst )
where Xworst, the worst value of the objective function in the same
subpopulation to which the jth seeker belongs. Addition of global
search component to the overall search direction reduces the
chances of the seekers being fall at local optimum, and the
addition of inter-sub-population learning mechanism is more
benecial to remove the worst seeker positions. According to
inter-sub-population learning scheme, if there are M
subpopulations, the M1 worst seekers in each subpopulation are
replaced by the best positions of the remaining M1 subpopulation.
Fig. 4 Method for maintaining radiality
3.2
Movement of the search of a new planning solution
After modication in existing SOA, we are obtaining a set of solution

of size N ND . Now, through mutation process, new set of solutions
have been obtained by applying certain changes to the found
topologies (dominated and non-dominated solutions). Some of the
feasible changes are allowed to obtain new solutions [10], which
satisfy the radiality constraint: (i) remove a feeder by introducing
new feeder, (ii) change the size of selected feeder, (iii) change the
size of the substation and (iv) remove or include a substation. For
example, a small network is considered (Fig. 4) with a substation at
bus 1 and load demands at six buses 27. To explain this
operation, we are going to consider the abovementioned changes
(1) and (2). In Fig. 4, the continuous segments are the existing
feeder routes and dashed segments are the additional routes that
could be a part of new solutions. The search of a new solution
starts in the aforementioned radial solution. First, the search
process selects a bus, let for instance bus 6 is selected. The allowed
movements correspond to bus 6 are either introducing a new feeder
by removing the existing feeder of this route, subject to preserve
the radiality constraint of a network that supplies power to bus 6
(feeder between buses (7, 6) or feeder on the route (3, 6)) or
change the size of the feeder on the route (7, 6).
Since the set of solutions that can be obtained from a given
mutated solution is usually composed of large set of solutions, we
can select the best seekers of size N ND , by combining the subset
of the new obtained solutions called elite candidates that seems
to be better than the current solution using a fast non-dominated
sorting algorithm. Now, the population of size N ND is divided into
N SP subpopulation, all of the subpopulations have the same size.
Then, repeat the same process from step 2 (Section 3.1), until the
specied stop criterion is fullled.
Basic form of the proposed SOA algorithm can only handle
continuous variables. However, both formation of radial topologies
and placement of RAs are discrete or integer variables in distribution
system planning problem. In this paper, SOA has been extended to
handle mixed variables using mixed variable handling method [17].
3.3
Formation of radial congurations using SOA
The proposed SOA uses topological analysis to produce initial

feasible radial topologies which satisfy the radiality constraints
[17]. At rst, the fundamental closed loops of the system are
identied in order to originate the radial topologies. The number
of fundamental loops (Y ), while analysing the meshed networks
can be expressed as
Y = NB N + 1
(19)
where NB is the total number of branches in the system and N is the

total number of buses available.
Equation (19) also indicates the total number of elements to be
disconnected in a meshed DN in order to obtain the radial
topology. The Y vectors of a network are dened as a group of
elements that form a closed loop in a circuit that does not contain
Fig. 5 Diagram of a 6-bus meshed network

Fig. 7 Evolution of a new seeker (new radial conguration)
any other closed loop. For Fig. 5, the closed loops selected are
Loop 1 = [L1 L3 L5 ]; Loop 2 = [L3 L4 L6 L7 ];
Loop 3 = [L2 L4 L7 L8 ]
To create a radial topology, one should select from the group of
fundamental loop vector elements to be disconnected (one for
loop). It is important that the vectors elements are not repeated in
a selected topology. The combination of elements can be
generated with these vectors, creating all possible radial topologies
of the system, which satisfy the radiality constraints, for Fig. 5
(condition 1: the solution must have ve (total number of load
buses) number of branches. Condition 2: the solution must be
connected; that means the solution must satisfy the conservation of
power ow constraints (it must supply the power demand at every
load bus, so that a path between the substation and each other bus
exists)). Therefore every bus is linked with the substation bus,
forming a connected graph.
For the system shown in Fig. 5, the total number of feasible radial
topologies, using the proposed method, is 30, whereas 56 topologies
were observed using a random methodology. This is one of the great
advantage of the proposed method. These considerations allow the
proposed SOA to limit the generation of non-feasible individuals.
This also reduces the combinatorial searching space.
One topological presentation is shown in Fig. 6, which satises
the radiality constraint. One radial topology represents one seeker.
For a 6-bus system with one source, the dimension of each seeker
is 5. The basic SOA structure for formation of new set of seekers
(new feasible radial topologies) is shown in Fig. 7, which forms a
radial conguration consisting of ve branches. From, Fig. 7, start
and end buses represents the line start and end bus numbers. Now,
the search direction and step length for each dimension of a seeker
is evaluated, as dened in Section 3.1 (step 2). Now, the position
of each dimension of a seeker is updated according to (16), which
forms one new radial topology, satises the radiality constraint.
Finally, the backward/forward load ow programme is carried out
to evaluate the tness function (5).
Fig. 6 Representation of a single radial network

3.4
Implementation of MOSOA for PDS planning
In SOA, at rst total of 300 numbers of radial structures have been

originated using fundamental loop generator as dened in Section
3.3. Then, the best 200 seekers have been selected by performing
fast non-dominated sorting approach. Then, inter-sub-population
learning scheme has been applied by dividing the best 200 seekers
into four different sub-populations of equal size. Each seeker
considered have n dimensions, where n consists of total number of
system load buses, RAs, DG locations and their sizes. Two test
systems consisting of 54-bus and 100-bus are considered in this
paper. Maximum of six (eight) RAs and three DGs are considered
for 54-bus (100-bus) system. For a 54-bus system, there are 53
load buses, thus each seeker have 65 dimensions (53-load buses,
6-RAs, 3-DG locations and 3-DG size), whereas for 100-bus
system there is 99 load buses, thus each seeker have 113
dimensions (99-load buses, 8-RAs, 3-DG locations and 3-DG
size). Each load bus has four different variables, namely, active
power injection, reactive power injection, voltage magnitude (pu)
and voltage angle (in radian). The system parameters are assumed
as maximum number of seekers are 100, (max, min) is (0.95,
0.0111), (wmax, wmin) is (0.1, 0.9), maximum number of
generations are 100, total independent runs are 50. After,
performing inter-sub-population learning scheme, evaluating the
search direction and step length for each dimension of a seeker as
shown in Fig. 7, where start and end buses represent the line start
and end bus numbers, respectively. After evaluation of new set of
seekers, performing the backward/forward load ow [1] and
evaluating the tness functions (1) and (4) of each new seeker.
Now, based on non-dominated sorting approach, evaluate the
global best, local best and personal best seekers.
The step-by-step solution procedure as shown in Fig. 8, which
shows that SOA is easy and straightforward approach to
implement for the under designed problem. First, a combined
population Rt Xt Yt is formed with a population size of 2N ND .
Then, the population Rt is sorted according to fast non-dominated
sorting approach. Since Rt contains all the previous and current
best seekers, thus elitism is ensured. Now, the solutions belonging
to rst-front, that is, F1 are the best non-dominated solutions than
any other solution in the combined population.
Thus, this rst-front solution must be emphasised more than any
other solution. If the size of F1 is smaller than N ND , we denitely
choose all the seekers of the set F1 for the new population Yt+1
and all the seekers selected in the set Yt+1 are used for seeker
operation such as updation of search direction and step length;
seeker mutation, sub-population learning scheme and movement
operation for the search of new planning solution. Now, the
remaining seeker of population set Yt+1 are chosen from the
subsequent non-dominated fronts in the order of their ranking.
Thus, the solutions from the set F2 is chosen next, followed by
solutions from the set F3 and so on. This procedure is followed
until the population size N ND has been selected. Afterwards, the
steps followed by the algorithm are as follows.
Fig. 8 MOSOA procedure
Step 1: Split the population of size N ND into N SP different

subpopulations. Each subpopulation is of same size.
Step 2: Evaluate the tness value of each seeker using (1) and (4).
Step 3: Determine the personal, global and local best positions based
on fast non-dominated sorting approach.
Step 4: Calculate the different components of search direction
dened in Section 3.1 (step 2).
Step 5: Update the position of each seeker using (16).
Step 6: Perform seeker mutation using the inter-sub-population
learning scheme dened in Section 3.1 (step 3).
Step 7: Perform seeker movement operation dened in Section 3.2.
Step 8: Now select the best seekers of size N ND from set of combined
solution (seeker mutation and from seeker movement operations)
using a fast non-dominated sorting algorithm for the new population
Xt+1.
Step 9: Combine Xt+1 (current solution) and Yt+1 (previous solution)
of size N ND , respectively, perform fast non-dominated sorting
algorithm and obtain the best set of seekers of size N ND and repeat
the same procedure from step 1 for the next set of population until
the stop criterion satises (either a maximum number of iterations
is reached or the objective function does not improve).
The owchart of the proposed MOSOA is shown in Fig. 9.
3.5
Selection of best MO planning solution
To obtain the balanced decision between two conicting objectives

for the MO planning solution, among the obtained Pareto points
on the Pareto-front, fuzzy theory approach [28] is applied. In this
approach, a fuzzy cardinal priority ranking for each non-dominated
solution of the obtained Pareto-front is calculated and it is
expressed as
N
k
i=1 m f
mk = M N i
k=1
i=1
(20)
mkfi
where i refers to the number of objective functions (1, 2, , N ), k

indicates the number of non-dominated solutions (1, 2, , M), fi
refers to the ith objective function, k is the cardinal priority
ranking of the kth non-dominated solution and m fi refers to the
degree of membership values in the scale of [0, 1] for each
objective function ( fi) shown in (21), where fimin and fimax refers to
the lower and higher values of the objective function fi
1,
max
fi fi
m fi =
,
fimax fimin
0,
fi fimin
fimin , fi , fimax
fi fimax
Development of fast NSGA-II and MOIPSO
This section introduces the fundamental concepts of NSGA-II [21]

and development of MO immunised-particle-swarm-optimisation
(MOIPSO) for optimal PDS planning.
4.1
Fast elitist MO GA (NSGA-II)
The NSGA was developed by Srinivas and Deb [6]. It has certain
drawbacks such as computational complexity, lack of elitism and
choosing the optimal parameter value for sharing parameter. These
drawbacks have been rectied in a modied version, NSGA-II,
which has a better sorting algorithm, incorporates elitism and no
sharing parameter needs to be chosen such as NSGA. Once the
populations are initialised, each population represents one radial
topology, then based on BCGA, position of RAs is placed
optimally to each radial topology. BCGA parameters are same as
used for MOSOA. After the evaluation of objective functions, the
initialised populations are sorted based on non-domination into
each front. After this the usual selection, cross-over and mutation
operations are performed.
In the ranking procedure, the non-dominated individuals are
identied rst from the current set of population which is called
the rst-front population. Thus, the rst-front solution is a
complete non-dominated set of solution and the second-front
individuals are only dominated by the rst-front individuals and
the front goes so on. Accordingly all the fronts are dened. Each
individual in each front are assigned rank values (e.g. individuals
in the rst (second) front are assigned rank 1(2)). After assignment
of rank, crowding distance is calculated for each individual. Now,
only either all the rst front solutions are selected or individuals
are selected using tournament selection based on rank and
crowding distance (An individual is selected if the rank is lesser
than the other or if the crowding distance is greater than the other.)
Now, the selected population generates offspring population from
crossover and mutation operators. Now, the population with the
current population and the current offspring populations is sorted
based on non-domination and only the best N individuals are
selected (elitism is ensured), where N is the population size.
Continue the same process till the stopping criterion is reached
(either a maximum number of iterations is reached or the objective
function does not improve).
(21)
Now, the most suitable solution among the non-dominated solution

is selected according to the highest value of k, where k = 1, 2, , M.
4.2
MO immunised particle-swarm-optimisation
To show the efcacy of the proposed approach, the MO version of an

improved
particle-swarm-optimisation
named
immunised
particle-swarm-optimisation [22] is also developed. The key steps
of MOIPSO are as follows.
Fig. 9 Flowchart of MOSOA for MO optimal design of PDS
Step 1: Initialise a swarm of particles. Generate N particles with

random velocities and positions, and set the iteration counter to
t = 0.
Step 2: Evaluate the objective function values; the overall cost
function (1) and reliability function (4) as dened in Section 2.
Step 3: Perform fast non-dominated sorting to entire swarm to obtain
non-dominated solution as dened in [22].
Step 4: Update the velocity and position of each particle, as dened
in [22].
Step 5: The updated particle position will then undergo tness
evaluation followed by non-dominated sorting as per steps 2 and
3. The resulting non-dominated solution are cloned till the
population size reaches N.
Step 6: The entire cloned population undergoes hyper-mutation
process. The mutation rate is kept low, which is set to 0.1 in this
paper. A mutation operator is adopted to prevent premature
convergence to a local Pareto-front [22].
Step 7: The tness evaluation of the combined population (cloned
and mutated particles) is carried out followed by the fast
non-dominated sorting shown in steps 2 and 3. The non-dominated
solution set is considered as the best output for the next
generation. Again, the velocity and position of next generation
swarms are updated following the step 4 and the iteration count is
increased by one. Repeat the same procedure from step 1 for the
next set of populations until the stop criterion is satised (either a
maximum number of iterations is reached or the objective function
does not improve).

Step 8: Then, the fuzzy theory approach is applied to select the most
suitable MO planning solution from the obtained Pareto-front as
dened in Section 3.5.
Results and discussion
The proposed research presents an MO design of PDS using SOA.

This algorithm can be used for the MO optimal design of
contingency-based distribution system considering n objectives,
although the proposed work focuses only on two different
conicting objectives (economic cost and overall system
reliability). Backward/forward load ow algorithm is developed in
this present work on MATLAB R2010a platform. The details of
the development of backward/forward load ow programme are
given in [1]. The results of the studied systems for a one year time
range are presented.
In this paper, maximum size of DGs is considered to be 2 MW
with specied power factor of 0.85 lagging for both the study
systems. Commercial information of DGs is provided in Table 2
[18]. Different conductor size specications are given in Table 3.
Parameters used for different methodologies are shown in Table 4.
CBs specication is given in Table 5. The installation cost of
each RA is considered to be $15 384.61. Short-circuit capacity of
each RA is considered to be 20 kA. The cost of operation
and maintenance cost of each substation is considered to be 0.01
$/(kVA)2h and 5 $/MWh, respectively. The variable cost-coefcient
Table 2 Specification of DGs [18]
Table 6
Power demand requirements, in KVA and XY coordinate, for

the 54-bus system
Parameters
Value
X
DG investment cost, $/MW

DG operation cost, $/(kVA)2h
DG maintenance cost, $/MWh
318 000
29
7
Table 3 Specification of conductor sizes

C.T.
Size,
kcmil
R,
/mi
X,
/mi
B.I.C.,
$/km
P.M.C.,
$/km/
year
C.M.C.,
$/km/
year
Current
rating, A
6
4
2
1/0
3/0
4/0
4.257
2.719
1.753
1.145
0.762
0.628
0.76
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.58
0.56
10 000
10 000
10 000
10 000
10 000
10 000
53.5
53.5
53.5
53.5
53.5
53.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
105
140
184
242
315
357
Turkey
Swan
Sparrow
Raven
Pigeon
Penguin
Stranding(Al/St)-6/1; C.T.: conductor type; B.I.C.: branch installation cost;

P.M.C.: preventive maintenance cost; C.M.C.: corrective maintenance cost.
0(1)
1(2)
2(3)
3
4
5
6
7
1.5
11.5
7.5
8.5
12.5
11
8
11
5.5
3.5
Load,
kVA
Load,
kVA
Load,
kVA
0
2
15
4
12
11.5
10
7
5.5
13.5
17.5
15.5
10.5
17.5
7.5
6
5.5
8.5
0
25
25
25
50
63
63
50
25
16
16
25
50
63
63
25
16
16
13
14
16.5
5.5
20.5
8
5
8
10.5
10.5
9
7.5
5.5
3
13
14
12.5
11
(36)
8
13
14
17
12
9
7
5.5
8
15
19
19.5
19.5
17.5
15.5
16.5
19
20
16
63
25
25
50
100
100
100
50
50
25
63
63
25
50
50
25
25
5
2
3
6
9
14
15
15
15.5
12
14.5
13.5
13
13.5
4
9.5
9.5(53)
12(54)
15.5
10.5
3.5
4
4.5
11.5
10
14.5
12.5
12
7.5
6
4.5
18
5
6.5
17
2.5
50
50
63
25
25
50
50
25
25
63
63
25
16
16
25
16
25
50
from bus (1) to (54)
Table 4 Parameters for the different techniques

Parameters
population size
(max, min)
(wmax, wmin)
cross-over probability
mutation probability
acceleration constants
max gen
independent run
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
100
(0.95, 0.0111)
(0.1, 0.9)
100
50
100
0.8
0.02
100
50
100
(0.4, 0.9)
(2, 2)
100
50
100
(0.4, 0.9)
0.1
(2, 2)
100
50
Table 5 Specification of CB
CB type
1
2
3
Short-circuit current rating, kA
Installation cost, $
25
35
50
20 000
40 000
60 000
for each line section is 0.05$/(kVA)2h. A compatible PC has been

used (central processing unit Intel core i5-2400, 3.10 GHz and 8
GB of random access memory) with 32 bit operating system
(Windows 7 professional) and the programme was developed on
MATLAB R2010a platform.
5.1
Test system 1: the 54-bus system
To illustrate the performance of the proposed MOSOA, a 54-bus, 11

kV test system given in [3] is designed with a proposed substation
Fig. 10 54-bus primary distribution system load points and a substation at

bus 1
capacity of 4 MVA and total load demand of 2.032 MVA. Fig. 10

shows the location of load points on XY coordinate of 54-bus
system. The substation is numbered as bus-1. Table 6 shows the
power demands and XY coordinate of the 54-bus DN. Fig. 11
shows all the possible paths to energise each load bus for a 54-bus
system. The substation installation and maintenance cost (per
annum) is considered to be $750 000 and $10 000, respectively.
Maximum of six RAs have been used, to enhance the overall
system reliability.
For the system shown in Fig. 11, the total number of feasible radial
topologies, using the fundamental loop generator as dened in
Section 3.3, is found to be 300, which satises the radiality
constraint, that is (Condition 1: the solution must have 53 number
of branches. Condition 2: the solution must be connected, that
means it must supply the power demand at every load bus, so
that a path between the substation and each other bus exists), that
reduces the search space (population) and allows reduction of the
computational time and minimises the memory requirements,
ensuring an efciency search. Out of 300 feasible radial
topologies, 200 best topologies have been selected depending on
their tness value (cost and CLLI), using fast non-dominated
sorting approach as an initial set of seekers. Afterwards, the
implementation of MOSOA is dened in Section 3.4.
Table 7 shows the results obtained from MOSOA, that have led to
the nal non-dominated solution curve. Out of 121 solutions
obtained, 39 solutions are from MOSOA, 23 from NSGA-II, 24
from MOPSO and 35 from MOIPSO. Pareto optimal fronts
obtained by MOSOA, NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO are shown
in Fig. 12. The network C (single feeder network), shown in
Fig. 13, is the network with minimum cost and the network D
(three feeder network) is the most reliable network shown in
Fig. 14 using the proposed MOSOA are obtained.
Now, from the set of non-dominated solution achieved by these
four algorithms, the planner can select the most suitable solution,
either by considering the most satisfactory value of the two
objective functions based on the experience on real-time practice
or by selecting the solutions based on number of well-known
methods shown in [28]. In this paper, fuzzy theory approach is
applied to select the nal optimal solution. To select the most
suitable MO planning solution, a fuzzy cardinal priority ranking
for each non-dominated solution of the obtained Pareto-front is
evaluated as dened in (20).
The network A (two feeder network), shown in Fig. 15 is the
intermediate network, that is, selected using fuzzy theory from
the set of non-dominated solutions (Fig. 12) is probably better
than networks C and D, under the designer viewpoint. It should be
noted that network A has a nancial cost of $3 109 432, that is,
only 9.05% more than network C, and is 3.64% less than network
10
Fig. 11 Possible paths between source and load points for a 54-bus system
D. The CLLI of network A is 0.1054, which is 68.5% less than C and

110.8% more than network D. Results clearly show that when the
number of feeder increases, reliability increases with an expense of
additional system installation cost, because of cost of additional
CBs and feeders.
Although comparing with an efcient MO algorithms NSGA-II,
MOPSO and MOIPSO (Table 8), it is noted that the network E
(Fig. 16) (most suitable solution obtained using NSGA-II) has a
nancial cost of $3 150 314, which is 1.32% higher than A
[Fig. 15] (the most suitable solution obtained using MOSOA).
Network B [Fig. 17] (most suitable solution obtained using
MOIPSO) and network F (the most suitable solution obtained
using MOPSO) have a nancial cost of $3 115 768 and $3 146
874 which is 0.21 and 1.21% higher than network A, respectively.
The CLLI of networks B, E and F are 0.112, 0.1202 and 0.144
which are 6.26, 14.04 and 36.62% higher than A (CLLI: 0.1054),
respectively. Thus, comparing the most suitable DN topologies A,
B, E and F, obtained using different algorithms, there are 21
topological differences existing between networks A and E (eight
different feeder routes and thirteen common feeder routes that
have different sizes for the two topologies), 14 topological
differences exist between networks A and B (seven different
feeder routes and seven common feeder routes that have different
sizes) and 19 topological differences exist between networks A
and F (eleven different feeder routes and eight common feeder
routes that have different sizes). The Pareto-front shown in Fig. 12
clearly shows that MOSOA dominates the other MO approaches
used for comparison purpose, which shows the superiority of the
proposed algorithm over others. Moreover, the technical features
of the MOSOA are also better than the other techniques. It is
noted that there is a substantial improvement on other performance
indices using MOSOA, such as on system total active power
losses (about 43.08% compared with MOIPSO, 44.32% compared
with NSGA-II and 54.08% compared with MOPSO), voltage
prole index (about 0.03% to MOIPSO, 0.1% to NSGA-II and
0.15% to MOPSO) and the reactive power loss (about 22.86% to
MOIPSO, 31.34% to NSGA-II and 44.21% to MOPSO) as
depicted in Table 8.
Table 9 shows the performance comparison of the proposed
approach (MOSOA), with different techniques, without deploying
DGs. For comparison, the same parameters are used in this

proposed research work for calculation of both objective functions

(cost and CLLI) for all the networks obtained with different
techniques. It is observed from Table 9 that the proposed MOSOA
provides improved results for cost and reliability (objective
functions) compared with other MO algorithms such as NSGA-II,
MOPSO and MOIPSO for most suitable network. Similar
comparison can be found for most reliable network as depicted in
Table 9. Fig. 18 shows the voltage prole using different
techniques (MOSOA, NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO) with and
without deploying DGs. It has been observed that using of DG
units results in improved network voltage prole and reduced net
power losses compared with without DGs case. The bus voltage
varies from 0.9985 (minimum) to 1.0002 pu(maximum) with DG
installation compared with the range of 0.99541 pu, without
installing DGs. From Tables 8 and 9, it is clear that there is
signicant reduction in total system power losses, which is about
20% of without DGs case (from 2.6149 kW without DGs to
0.5102 kW with DGs) using the MOSOA. Thus, inclusion of DGs
not only improves the overall system reliability (CLLI index), but
also it enhances the system voltage prole and reduces the total
active and reactive power losses.
The nal solution of the MOSOA is much more satisfactory as it
signicantly improves the cost and reliability of the PDS and system
performance indices. Furthermore, it is observed from Table 7 that
the number of non-dominated solutions: the cost, their RA
position, the CLLI index value, DG locations and their sizes,
which can be selected by the decision maker considering their past
experience or the requisites of the PDS.
5.2
Test system 2: the 100-bus system
For demonstrating the efcacy of the proposed method, a large test

system the 100-bus, 34.8 kV given in [15] with a proposed
substation capacity of 18 MVA and total load demand of 12.63
MVA is considered. Maximum of eight RAs have been used in
the network to enhance the overall system reliability. The detailed
data for 100-bus system is available in [15]. Load model is
considered to be the mix of residential, commercial and industrial
loads. The base voltage and power are 34.8 kV and 100 MVA,
11
12
76
1511
4118
3246
2529
2453
1753
2531
1625
1544
2128
4840
1618
3841
1439
1925
3439
4136
1731
2136
4916
67
3228
2622
5012
3228
2848
2438
3027
5015
3546
2728
1931
1831
3145
2416
1923
3228
1524
239
2139
1531
2233
1118
305
2732
1245
2252
1821
4143
3639
2327
3942
3334
1443
1618
5021
2147
4129
3450
4546
1537
3645
2942
1137
1653
1643
1441
1741
3036
2115
2427
3247
3916
3450
1147
1837
1343
4849
2433
3549
1841
2433
3212
2843
4919
3237
3138
4239
3435
3332
4329
1946
3152
2425
3514
1219
2033
2325
2953
2244
1632
2721
2244
2043
1842
1736
1822
1132
2935
1218
3219
2329
4325
2853
2244
2045
For each Pareto points (k) starts from (1) to (39).
(1)24-15
(2)1233
1145
2133
3249
2936
1142
2853
2841
2233
1338
4233
1316
3652
1632
2617
2832
5148
1451
2624
3024
818
1413
2529
2642
1013
1513
3934
3129
1844
1742
1948
2928
2844
2935
3024
1927
1213
1751
Automatic recloser location, RA
1028
2654
3032
3034
3848
4250
4639
5213
1454
2327
3452
4549
4352
1940
1215
1333
3546
3642
2215
2312
2916
1435
4146
1751
1944
4146
4049
2046
1252
2143
1433
2247
1648
5215
3039
1916
1335
4146
1122
3536
2338
2833
1140
2134
4640
3349
4254
3139
2541
1811
1311
5339
5153
1119
3234
4623
3739
3049
2735
3235
3536
1349
2946
1345
1349
2250
1546
2249
1046
2551
1525
4853
1649
2246
4235
4546
1349
3550
Table 7 Set of non-dominated solutions obtained using MOSOA
0.553
0.423
0.489
0.479
0.641
0.329
0.444
0.489
0.223
0.593
0.389
0.488
0.432
0.477
0.418
0.489
0.679
0.249
0.327
0.344
0.589
0.535
0.498
0.398
0.428
0.492
0.456
0.481
0.493
0.497
0.649
0.399
0.379
0.423
0.529
0.476
0.328
0.398
0.512
0.627
0.317
0.717
0.577
0.419
0.624
0.399
0.369
0.427
0.397
0.423
0.439
0.576
0.419
0.389
0.456
0.443
0.512
0.623
0.386
0.429
0.438
0.554
0.512
0.476
0.399
0.445
0.398
0.541
0.511
0.499
0.523
0.543
0.556
0.396
0.412
0.643
0.366
0.192
DG sizes, MW
0.364
0.541
0.262
0.239
0.289
0.318
0.413
0.517
0.621
0.289
0.419
0.399
0.512
0.412
0.419
0.643
0.329
0.781
0.431
0.541
0.398
0.456
0.651
0.341
0.239
0.416
0.395
0.431
0.445
0.476
0.319
0.422
0.362
0.369
0.328
0.378
0.319
0.571
0.311
1.544
1.281
1.468
1.295
1.349
1.271
1.256
1.375
1.271
1.279
1.231
1.326
1.520
1.308
1.226
1.588
1.451
1.542
1.381
1.271
1.416
1.429
1.703
1.251
1.143
1.307
1.296
1.310
1.479
1.484
1.467
1.344
1.284
1.348
1.253
1.266
1.290
1.335
1.015
Sum (DG
sizes, MW)
20
24
4
8
18
6
12
11
5
13
17
32
12
16
23
20
12
11
7
8
12
2
18
29
30
6
15
42
21
13
27
18
32
41
18
21
31
20
23
23
44
32
42
31
20
19
18
34
48
51
42
34
23
52
28
28
39
21
3
51
14
32
5
42
18
31
12
52
43
29
28
39
49
32
42
6
16
24
DG locations
41
31
42
21
52
52
41
51
52
21
20
50
50
52
31
50
52
42
43
50
29
52
52
51
52
42
48
8
16
26
52
49
49
13
49
51
52
51
32
80.03
88.54
92.14
94.96
96.89
108.96
102.78
112.34
145.49
103.45
101.32
100.98
104.54
108.49
109.21
111.21
102.56
111.34
123.32
119.54
110.31
100.80
102.39
112.32
119.12
101.23
100.34
132.23
103.45
101.36
121.36
122.35
121.38
101.49
100.23
100.89
112.34
114.45
102.80
Losses, kW
2 851 128
2 883 412
2 899 834
2 912 769
2 920 342
2 928 763
2 930 245
2 936 523
2 939 876
2 942 784
2 949 385
2 957 893
2 965 487
2 969 879
2 971 398
2 979 934
2 989 986
3 042 664
3 086 594
3 095 487
3 099 789
3 109 432
3 132 889
3 149 989
3 152 134
3 152 786
3 161 245
3 170 234
3 178 965
3 189 567
3 198 345
3 209 456
3 234 217
3 249 789
3 269 838
3 277 985
3 281 425
3 293 452
3 301 945
Ck
0.3311
0.3241
0.3118
0.2912
0.2768
0.2712
0.2601
0.2513
0.2281
0.2116
0.2054
0.1914
0.1723
0.1534
0.1402
0.1304
0.1264
0.1186
0.1154
0.1142
0.1135
0.1054
0.1052
0.0989
0.0969
0.0945
0.0912
0.0889
0.0832
0.0739
0.0699
0.0645
0.0601
0.0541
0.0533
0.0532
0.0523
0.0512
0.0501
CLLIk
single
single
single
single
single
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
two
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
three
Feeder
configuration
Fig. 12 Pareto-fronts of MOSOA, NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO for 54-bus system
respectively. Fig. 19 shows all the possible paths to energise each

load bus for a 100-bus system.
Out of 127 solutions obtained, 42 solutions are from MOSOA, 32
from NSGA-II, 25 from MOPSO and 28 from MOIPSO. Pareto
optimal fronts obtained by MOSOA, NSGA-II, MOPSO and
MOIPSO are shown in Fig. 20. The network A (two feeder
network), shown in Fig. 21 is the intermediate network, which is
probably better than networks C (minimum cost network, Fig. 22)
and D (most reliable network, Fig. 23) under the designer
viewpoint. Although comparing with efcient MO algorithms such
as NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO, it is noted that the network A
(most suitable solution obtained using MOSOA) is far more
superior in both cost and reliability as shown in Table 10.
Moreover, it is observed from Table 10 that there is a substantial

improvement on other performance indices using MOSOA, such
as total system active and reactive power losses, and voltage
prole as compared with others.
Table 11 shows the performance comparison of the proposed
MOSOA, with different techniques without deploying DGs.
Results obtained clearly show the improvements of MOSOA over
the other techniques for both, the most suitable solution and the
most reliable solution (Table 11). Fig. 24 shows the voltage prole
using different techniques with and without deploying DGs. It is
observed that the bus voltage varies from 0.9988 (minimum) to
1 pu (maximum) with DGs compared with the range of 0.9966 to
1 pu in case of without deploying DGs. From Tables 10 and 11, it
Fig. 13 Most economical solution obtained using MOSOA: network C

13
Fig. 14 Most reliable solution obtained using MOSOA: network D
Fig. 15 Most suitable solution: MOSOA-network A
is clear that there is signicant improvement in total system power

losses which is about 37.11% that of without DG case (from
3.2292 kW without DGs to 1.1985 kW with DGs). On account of
the aforementioned facts, it is clear that DGs not only improve the
overall system reliability (CLLI index), but also it enhances the

system voltage prole and reduces the total power losses.
The obtained Pareto-front (Fig. 20) clearly shows that MOSOA
dominates the other techniques NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO.
14
Table 8 Comparison of most

techniques for 54-bus system
suitable
solutions
with
different
Parameters
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
cost, $
CLLI
maximum voltage
deviation, pu
worst voltage, pu
active power loss, kW
reactive power loss, kVAr
3 109 432
0.1054
0.0015
3 150 314
0.1202
0.0029
3 146 874
0.144
0.003
3 115 768
0.112
0.0018
0.9985
0.5102
0.4025
0.9971
0.9163
0.5862
0.997
1.1109
0.7214
0.9982
0.8963
0.5218
Details of the computational complexity of all different algorithms

are depicted in Table 12, which indicates that the proposed
approach is computationally less intensive than the other
techniques for both the test systems under consideration.
MOEAs are executed for 50 independent runs, thus the box-plot

and t-test tools are also used to show the quality of the obtained
results by these metrices.
6.1
Comparison of the Pareto-fronts
The obtained Pareto-front for 54- and 100-bus systems (Figs. 12 and
20, respectively) clearly shows that MOSOA dominates the other
techniques, for both the systems which show the superiority of the
proposed algorithm over others.
6.1.1 Convergence metric: Using C-metric, the quality of the
two given sets of non-dominated solutions is compared. For two
given Pareto-sets A and B, the function Ic maps the ordered pair
(A, B) to the interval [0, 1] as follows
Ic(A, B) =
6 Performance comparison of MOSOA with other

techniques
The MOSOA is compared with other MOEAs such as NSGA-II,
MOPSO and MOIPSO. All the evolutionary algorithms are
executed for 50 times, where the populations was monitored for
non-dominated solutions and the resulting non-dominated set is
taken as the outcome of one optimisation run. For a powerful MO
algorithm, the distance of the obtained non-dominated set to the
Pareto-front should be minimised. Moreover, a proper distribution
is desirable for the obtained solutions. Moreover, for each
objective, a wide range of values should be covered by the
non-dominated solutions. In aspect of these, the quality of the
MOEAs can be evaluated by some comparison metrices such as
C-metric, generational distance, error ratio, D-metric, spaced
metric, relative C-metric etc. [23]. First three metrices need the
true Pareto-front of the problem. Since for many engineering
problems, the true Pareto-front is unknown; thus, the comparison
is made by plotting the Pareto-front and considering relative
C-metric [23], SP-metric [23] and D-metric [23]. As all the
size({b [ B,
a [ A:ab})
|B|
where size(z) is the number of elements in the specied set z,

means weakly dominated, |B| is the size of the Pareto-set B. The
value of 1 for Ic(A, B) signies that all the decision vectors in
B are weakly dominated by the Pareto-set A. The value of 0 for
Ic(A, B) signies that none of the decision vectors in B are
weakly dominated by the Pareto-set A. Since Ic(A, B) is not
necessarily equal to 1 Ic(B, A), both directions always have to
be considered.
(a) Box-plot: For a pair (A, B), there is a sample set of 50 average
C-metric values have obtained according to the 50 independent
runs. The box-plot is used to visualise the distribution of these
samples. Fig. 25 illustrates the box-plot for the two test systems
(test system 1(54-bus) and test system 2(100-bus)). These gures
show that the left boxes Ic (MOSOA) are signicantly higher than
the right boxes Ic (NSGA-II), Ic (MOPSO) and Ic (MOIPSO) in
almost all the 50 independent runs. In fact, higher Ic (MOSOA)
means the better approximate Pareto optimal solution set is found
by MOSOA compared with NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO.
Fig. 16 Most suitable solution: NSGA-II-network E

15
Fig. 17 Most suitable solution: MOIPSO-network B
Table 9 Comparison of MOSOA with different techniques for 54-bus

system (without DGs)
Algorithms
Most suitable
Cost($)
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
2.780 106
2.863 106
3.213 106
2.821 106
Most reliable
CLLI
Cost($)
CLLI
0.1321
0.1426
0.1600
0.1389
2.898 106
2.996 106
3.386 106
2.931 106
0.0821
0.1311
0.1376
0.1231
Thus, the box-plot clearly indicates that the proposed method is

performing well in nding the approximate Pareto optimal front,
compared with other techniques.
(b) t-test: The unpaired t-test is a statistical hypothesis test applied to
data containing two or more sets of groups. It is used to determine
whether the two sets of data are signicantly different from each
other or not. Tables 13 and 14 show mean value, standard
deviation and the results of the unpaired t-test between MOSOA,
NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO [29] and signicant differences
are observed between MOSOA and others techniques for both the
test systems.
Fig. 18 Voltage prole for 54-bus system with and without deploying DGs using different techniques
16
Fig. 19 Possible paths between source and load points for a 100-bus system
Fig. 20 Pareto-fronts of MOSOA, NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO for 100-bus system
6.1.2 Spacing metric: This metric measures the distance

between consecutive solutions in the obtained Pareto optimal front
and is dened as

n
1

(d d)
SP =
n 1 i=1 i
where n
is number
of vectors in the Pareto-front found,
i
k

di = mink M
m=1 fm fm , k = 1, 2, . . . , N and i k. M is the
total number of objectives to be optimised. d is the mean of all di.

If SP-metric takes a value of zero, it shows that all the
non-dominated solutions found are equidistantly spaced. Thus, any
MOEA having a smaller SP is better as the solutions are close to
uniform spread. The obtained results for SP-metric are given in
Tables 15 and 16 and the corresponding box-plot is shown in
Fig. 26. The results show that the difference is non-signicant
among all the algorithms, as all algorithms are performing similar
for test systems 1 and 2.
17
Fig. 21 Most suitable solution: MOSOA-network A
Fig. 22 Most economical solution obtained using MOSOA: network C
6.1.3 Diversication metric: The diversication metric is used

to measure the spread of the solution set, and is dened as

n

max X Y
D=
i
i=1

where Xi Yi is the Euclidean distance between the
non-dominated solutions Xi and Yi . The obtained results for
D-metric are depicted in Tables 17 and 18. Results clearly show
that NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO have more diversity than
MOSOA in the obtained Pareto-fronts for both the test systems.
The results are obvious as the MOSOA dominates the NSGA-II,
MOPSO and MOIPSO (shown in Figs. 12 and 20) and all
18
Fig. 23 Most reliable solution obtained using MOSOA: network D
Table 10 Comparison of most

techniques for 100-bus system
suitable
solution
with
different
Parameters
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
cost, $
CLLI
maximum voltage
deviation, pu
worst voltage, pu
active power loss, kW
reactive power loss, kVAr
6 134 523
0.121
0.0012
6 146 342
0.1525
0.002
6 149 285
0.1725
0.0024
6 139 828
0.1401
0.0019
0.9988
1.1985
0.8965
0.998
1.9404
1.1762
0.9976
2.2021
1.6825
0.9981
1.2242
0.9826
Table 11 Comparison of MOSOA with different techniques for 100-bus

system (without DGs)
Algorithms
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
Most suitable
Most reliable
Cost, $
CLLI
Cost, $
CLLI
5.81 106
5.94 106
6.02 106
5.92 106
0.21
0.23
0.26
0.22
6.01 106
6.10 106
6.386 106
6.096 106
0.12
0.16
0.1676
0.1411
Fig. 24 Voltage prole for 54-bus system with and without deploying DGs using different techniques
19
Table 12 Comparison of computational complexity

System
54-bus
100-bus
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
MOIPSO
Shortest
time, s
Longest
time, s
Average
time, s
Shortest
time, s
Longest
time, s
Average
time, s
Shortest
time, s
Longest
time, s
Average
time, s
Shortest
time, s
Longest
time, s
Average
time, s
4900.65
4996.43
5980.56
5998.89
5400.5
5434.6
7649.8
7946.9
8200.8
8289.2
7800.3
7864.8
5682.4
5996.2
7272.8
8184.6
6141.3
6894.5
5848.8
6148.1
7301.2
8489.2
6468.3
6964.2
Fig. 25 Box-plot for average C-metric values for 54-bus (test system 1) and 100-bus (test system 2)
Table 13 C-Metric: for 54-bus test system

Average C-metric
MOSOA
mean
std
t-test difference
0.59
1.8 102
NSGA-II
Table 15 SP-metric: for 54-bus test system

MOPSO
MOIPSO
0.29
0.25
0.51
3.6 102
2.6 102
2.1 102
3
2.84 10 extremely significant
Table 14 C-metric: for 100-bus test system

Average C-metric
MOSOA
mean
std
t-test difference
0.69
3.4 102
NSGA-II
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
mean
std
t-test difference
0.029
2 102
0.056
0.066
3 102
3.2 102
0.0452 non-significant
MOIPSO
0.045
2.8 102
Table 16 SP-metric: for 100-bus test system

MOPSO
MOIPSO
0.28
0.31
0.49
9.9 102
5.9 102
4.8 102
3
3.18 10 extremely significant
solutions of MOSOA are close to Pareto optimal front which have

less diversity. Thus, we can conclude that the proposed MOSOA
can maintain superior approximate Pareto optimal set than the
other MO algorithms.
SP-metric
Conclusion
A method for optimal design of APDS including DGs is presented

based on the combination of fundamental loop generator and
SP-metric
MOSOA
mean
std
t-test difference
0.043
6.718 102
NSGA-II
MOPSO
0.076
0.081
8.834 102
8.52 102
0.0086 non-significant
MOIPSO
0.059
7.4 102
MOSOA, which considers simultaneous optimisation of total

system economic cost and overall system reliability, suitable for
optimal design. The initial feasible set of solutions is originated by
applying the fundamental loop generator which are used as initial
solutions and are further improved by MOSOA. The MOSOA
uses an original structure of movement operation on network
buses of the planning solutions, enabling the feasibility of the
searched solutions to be maintained. Furthermore, inclusion of
elitism guarantees that the solutions with higher tness value are
not eliminated during the run of an optimisation algorithm. This
Fig. 26 Box-plot for SP-metric values for 54-bus (test system 1) and 100-bus (test system 2)
20
Table 17 D-metric: for 54-bus test system

D-Metric
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
mean
std
t-test difference
0.43
3 102
0.59
0.61
5 102
4.3 102
0.63 significant
MOIPSO
0.49
3.9 102
Table 18 D-metric: for 100-bus test system

D-metric
MOSOA
NSGA-II
MOPSO
mean
std
t-test difference
0.513
5.7 101
0.725
0.764
8.2 101
7.8 102
0.498 significant
MOIPSO
0.631
6.2 102
method takes into account the total annual cost including xed and
variable costs of DGs and substations, energy loss cost and the
reliability function (CLLI). Extensive testing is carried out in order
to design a real PDS including distribution automation devices and
DNs are generated based on trade-off between cost and reliability.
Moreover, a fuzzy theory approach is employed to automatically
select the most suitable solution over the Pareto-front. Extensive
performance comparisons are made with efcient MO algorithms
such as NSGA-II, MOPSO and MOIPSO for 54-bus and 100-bus
PDSs. The comparison is made qualitatively by plotting the
Pareto-front, and considering comparison metrices such as
C-metric, the SP-metric and the D-metric. The Pareto-front and the
three performance metrices results clearly indicate that MOSOA
has superior performance in both convergence and uniform
diversity compared with other MOEAs. Moreover, MOSOA is
computationally less intensive than the others. Nevertheless, the
method presented in this paper is highly effective and helpful to
system planners for obtaining typical designs of an APDS.
Acknowledgment
This research work is fully supported by the Department of Science

and Technology, Government of India, (DST/INSPIRE Fellowship/
2012/224).
References
1 Samui, A., Singh, S., Ghose, T., Samantaray, S.R.: A direct approach to optimal
feeder routing for radial distribution system, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2012,
27, (1), pp. 253260
2 El-Kady, M.A.: Computer-aided planning of distribution substation and primary
feeders, IEEE Trans. Power Appl. Syst., 1984, PAS-103, (6), pp. 11831189
3 Ranjan, R., Venkatesh, B., Das, D.: A new algorithm for power distribution system
planning, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2002, 62, (1), pp. 5565
4 Kumar, D., Samantaray, S.R., Kamwa, I.: A radial path building algorithm for
optimal feeder planning of primary distribution networks considering reliability
assessment, Electr. Power Compon. Syst., 2014, 42, (8), pp. 861877
5 Ramrez-Rosado, I.J., Bernal-Agustn, J.L.: GA applied to the design of large
power distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (2), pp. 696703
6 Ramrez-Rosado, I.J., Bernal-Agustn, J.L.: New multi-objective Tabu search
algorithm for fuzzy optimal planning of power distribution systems, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2006, 21, (1), pp. 224233

7 Mendoza, F., Agustin, J.B., Dominguez-Navarro, J.A.: NSGA and SPEA applied
to multiobjective design of power distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2006, 21, (4), pp. 19381945
8 Kumar, D., Samantaray, S.R.: A multi-objective design of advanced power
distribution network using an evolutionary approach. SCES 2014, May 2014,
pp. 16
9 Ramrez-Rosado, I.J., Bernal-Agustn, J.L.: Reliability and costs optimization for
distribution networks expansion using an evolutionary algorithm, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., 2001, 16, (1), pp. 111118
10 Ramrez-Rosado, I.J., Domnguez-Navarro, J.A.: Possibilistic model based on
fuzzy sets for the multiobjective optimal planning of electric power distribution
networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, (4), pp. 18011810
11 Smith, D.K., Walters, G.A.: An evolutionary approach for nding optimal trees in
undirected networks, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2000, 120, (3), pp. 593602
12 Duan, G., Yu, Y.: Power distribution system optimization by an algorithm for
capacitated Steiner tree problems with complex-ows and arbitrary cost
functions, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2003, 25, (7), pp. 515523
13 Carrano, E.G., Soares, L.A.E., Takahashi, R.H.C., Saldanha, R.R., Neto, O.M.:
Electric distribution network multiobjective design using a problem-specic
genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2006, 21, (2), pp. 9951005
14 Duan, G., Yu, Y.: Problem-specic genetic algorithm for power transmission
system planning, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2002, 61, (1), pp. 4150
15 Ganguly, S., Sahoo, N.C., Das, D.: A novel MOPSO for electrical distribution
system planning incorporating distributed generation, Energy Syst., 2010, 1, (3),
pp. 291337
16 Ganguly, S., Sahoo, N.C., Das, D.: Multi-objective planning of electrical
distribution systems incorporating sectionalizing switches and tie-lines using
particle swarm optimization, Swarm Evol. Comput., 2012, 3, pp. 1532
17 Kumar, D., Samantaray, S.R.: Design of an advanced electric power distribution
systems using seeker optimization algorithm, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014,
63, pp. 196217
18 Nekooei, K., Farsangi, M.M., Pour, H.N., Lee, K.Y.: A multiobjective particle
swarm optimization for sizing and placement of DGs from DG owner and
distribution companys viewpoints, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2014, 29, (4),
pp. 18311840
19 Kumar, D., Samantaray, S.R., Joos, G.: A reliability assessment based graph
theoretical approach for feeder routing in power distribution networks including
distributed generations, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014, 57, pp. 1130
20 Kumar, D., Samantaray, S.R., Kamwa, I., Sahoo, N.C.: Reliability-constrained
optimal placement of multiple distributed generators in power distribution
network using cat-swarm-optimization, Electr. Power Compon. Syst., 2014, 42,
(2), pp. 149164
21 Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2002, 6, (2),
pp. 182197
22 Nanda, S.J., Panda, G.: Automatic clustering algorithm based on multi-objective
Immunized PSO to classify actions of 3D human models, Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell., 2013, 26, pp. 14291441
23 Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Niknam, T., Zare, M., Gharibzadeh, M.:
Multi-objective short-term scheduling of thermoelectric power systems using a
novel multi-objective -improved cuckoo optimisation algorithm, IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (5), pp. 873894
24 Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Niknam, T., Gharibzadeh, M., Golestaneh, F.:
Robust, fast and optimal solution of practical economic dispatch by a new
enhanced gradient-based simplied swarm optimisation algorithm, IET Gener.
25 El-Zonkoly, A.M.: Optimal placement of multiple distributed generation units
including different load models using particle swarm optimization, IET Gener.
26 Zhang, H., Vittal, V., Heydt, G.T., Quintero, J.: A mixed-integer linear
programming approach for multi-stage security-constrained transmission
expansion planning, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2012, 27, (2), pp. 11251133
27 Narimani, M.R., Vahed, A.A., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Javidshari, M.:
Enhanced gravitational search algorithm for multi-objective distribution feeder
reconguration considering reliability, loss and operational cost, IET Gener.
28 Niknam, T., Narimani, M.R., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Bahmani-Firouzi, B.:
Multiobjective optimal reactive power dispatch and voltage control: a new
opposition-based self-adaptive modied gravitational search algorithm, IEEE
Syst. J., 2013, 7, (4), pp. 742753
29 Derrac, J., Garca, S., Molina, D., Herrera, F.: A practical tutorial on the use of
nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and
swarm intelligence algorithms, Swarm Evol. Comput., 2011, 1, pp. 318
21

Multi-Objective Design of Advanced Power Distribution Networks Using Restrictedpopulation-Based Multi-Objective Seekeroptimisation-Algorithm and Fuzzy-Operator

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Multi-Objective Design of Advanced Power Distribution Networks Using Restrictedpopulation-Based Multi-Objective Seekeroptimisation-Algorithm and Fuzzy-Operator

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Multi-objective design of advanced power

Deepak Kumar 1, Subhransu Ranjan Samantaray 1 , Innocent Kamwa 2

School of Electrical Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, India

Planning of an optimal power distribution system (PDS) involves the

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

algorithms (mono- or multi-objective (MO)) [58] have distinct

because of various unpredictable non-technical reasons, such as short

NSGA-II and MOIPSO (Section 4), presentation of results and

An MO optimisation (Pareto optimisation) problem (MOPs) is

(i, j)[NF a[Na

(i, j)[NF m[Nm

(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[(CkV )b (Xk )2b ]ta +

[(CDV )g (XD )2g ]ta

[(Ci,Vj )a {(Xi, j )2a + (X j, i )2a }]ta

(i, j)[NF a[Na

[{(Ci,Vj )E }a {(Xi, j )2a + (X j, i )2a }]ta

(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[{(CkV )E }b (Xk )2b ]ta

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

[(Ci,Mj )a (Yi, j )a ]ta

(i, j)[NF a[Na

[[(Ci,Mj )E ]a (Yi, j )a ]ta

(i, j)[NFE a[Na

[(CDM )g (YD )g ]ta

Table 1 Different types of loads and exponent values [25]

[(CkM )b (Yk )b ]ta

[[(CkM )E ]b (Yk )b ]ta

where NFE is the set of routes (between buses) associated with

similar to an active transmission network. Therefore considering

An original method has been developed in order to evaluate the

where NDLi is the non-delivered load because of fault in branch i;

Fig. 1 Single feeder radial network with/without RA

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Fig. 2 Multi-feeder radial network with two RA and a TS

Case 1: Single feeder radial conguration with RA in branch

Fig. 3 Flowchart for calculation of CLLI index in presence of DGs

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

(a) The capacity constraint limits of the distribution lines: power ow

where S(i, j )max is the maximum thermal capacity of the distribution

where Vn is the voltage magnitude of the nth bus. N is the total

PLoss (n) PDG, i

QLoss (n) QDG, i

where NB is the number of branches, NN is the number of buses and

Summary of SOA for the MO design of PDS

This section introduces the basic concepts of SOA [17]; afterwards

Step 1: Initialisation process:

The simultaneous minimisation of two objective functions is

(e) Power conservation limits: In a distribution system, the algebraic

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., pp. 121

seeker represents one radial topology and the constraints are

where is a random vector corresponding to the search radius which

where Xbest is the position of the best seeker in the subpopulation to

Fig. 4 Method for maintaining radiality

Movement of the search of a new planning solution

After modication in existing SOA, we are obtaining a set of solution

Formation of radial congurations using SOA

The proposed SOA uses topological analysis to produce initial

where NB is the total number of branches in the system and N is the