Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Multi-objective optimal reactive power dispatch considering voltage stability in power systems using HFMOEA
Amit Saraswat, Ashish Saini n
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282110, India

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 1 September 2011 Received in revised form 5 May 2012 Accepted 15 June 2012 Available online 19 July 2012 Keywords: Multi-objective optimization Optimal reactive power dispatch Voltage stability Pareto-optimal front Fuzzy logic controller Hybrid evolutionary algorithm

a b s t r a c t
This paper proposes a new hybrid fuzzy multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (HFMOEA) based approach for solving complex multi-objective, mixed integer nonlinear problems such as optimal reactive power dispatch considering voltage stability (ORPD-VS). In HFMOEA based optimization approach, the two parameters like crossover probability (PC) and mutation probability (PM) are varied dynamically through the output of a fuzzy logic controller. The fuzzy logic controller is designed on the basis of expert knowledge to enhance the overall stochastic search capability for generating better pareto-optimal solution. Two detailed case studies are presented: Firstly, the performance of HFMOEA is tested on ve benchmark test problems such as ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4 and ZDT6 as suggested by Zitzler, Deb and Thiele; Secondly, HFMOEA is applied to multi-objective ORPD-VS problem. In both the case studies, the optimization results obtained from HFMOEA are analysed and compared with the same obtained from two versions of elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms such as NSGA-II and MNSGA-II in terms of various performance metrics. The simulation results are promising and conrm the ability of HFMOEA for generating better pareto-optimal fronts with superior convergence and diversity. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Many complex optimization problems related to power system planning and operations are required to be solved by the power system engineers and researchers. Optimal reactive power dispatch (ORPD) is one such optimization problem which is concerned with security and economy of power system operation. It is used to determine optimal settings of system control variables such as generators bus voltages, shunt capacitors/ inductors and transformers tap-settings, whereas the dependent variables are load bus voltages and generators reactive power outputs. Although reactive power generation has no production cost, but it affects the overall generation cost by the way of real transmission losses. ORPD schedules all reactive power resources present in a power system to minimize the real transmission losses and consequently results in the lowest production cost for which the operation constraints are satised (Zhao et al., 2005; Dai et al., 2009a). The problem of voltage instability arises due to insufcient reactive support to maintain normal bus voltage prole at heavily loaded buses. Hence, extensive research efforts have been made to understand the phenomenon associated with

Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 562 2801224; fax: 91 562 2801226. E-mail address: ashish_711@rediffmail.com (A. Saini).

the voltage instability (Kessel and Glavitsch, 1986; Van Cutsem, 1991; Kamalasadan et al., 2009). Many ways to determine the static voltage stability of the system or to check the vulnerability of a bus towards instability by using real power-voltage (PV) curves, minimum singular value (MSV), L-index etc. are reported in literature (Corsi, 2010). Therefore, in Refs. Vyjayanthi and Thukaram (2011) and Bansilal et al. (1996), L-index is considered as objective function in ORPD formulation in order to incorporate the voltage stability improvement. Since, ORPD is a complex nonlinear optimization problem involving multiple local minima with mixture of discrete and continuous variables hence, it requires an efcient and robust solution technique. In recent past, researchers paid more attention to multiobjective problem (MOP) formulation of ORPD to incorporate the issue of voltage stability. It requires multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) for their solution. Abido and Bakhashwain (2005) considered total real transmission losses and voltage deviation as two objective functions in ORPD formulation and proposed a strength pareto evolutionary algorithm as solution technique. In Refs. Zhang and Liu (2008) and Dai et al. (2009b), L-index is also included along with real transmission losses and voltage deviation to formulate multi-objective ORPD problem. Zhang and Liu (2008) presented a fuzzy adaptive particle swarm optimization approach, whereas Dai et al. (2009b) adopted a weight sum approach using seeker optimization algorithm as a solution technique. In Ref. Montoya et al. (2010), the performance of

0952-1976/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2012.06.008

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

391

Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy is evaluated in order to minimize both voltage deviation and real transmission losses by operating under load tap-changers located at high voltage substations. Jeyadevi et al. (2011) proposed a modied nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (MNSGA-II) to solve multiobjective ORPD problem. In the present paper, an ORPD problem considering voltage stability called as ORPD-VS, is formulated as a nonlinear multiobjective optimization problem. It includes two objectivestotal real transmission losses (TRTL) and voltage stability enhancement index (VSEI) also known as L-index. A new hybrid fuzzy multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (HFMOEA) is proposed to solve complex multi-objective problems like ORPD-VS. In HFMOEA, the two signicant parameters such as crossover probability (PC) and mutation probability (PM) are varied dynamically during the execution of the optimization process to enhance overall stochastic search capability of algorithm. The variations in these parameters take place according to the output of a fuzzy controller designed based on expert knowledge. Two detailed case studies are presented in this paper. In the rst case study, the performance of HFMOEA is examined on ve benchmark test problems such as ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4 and ZDT6 as suggested by Zitzler, Deb and Thiele (Zitzler et al., 2000). The second case study is focussed on the application of HFMOEA to multi-objective ORPD-VS problem and tested on standard IEEE 24 bus reliability test system. In both the case studies, the performance of HFMOEA is compared with two elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms such as a real-coded NSGA-II (Deb et al., 2002) and its modied version called as MNSGA-II (Jeyadevi et al., 2011). Moreover, the optimization results and pareto-optimal fronts obtained from all three MOEAs are analysed in terms of three multi-objective performance metrics such as spacing, generational distance and hypervolume. Rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the mathematical formulation for multi-objective optimal reactive power dispatch problem. In Section 3, the details of HFMOEA to solve multi-objective ORPD-VS problem are described. The numerical results of two case studies along with detailed discussions are presented in Section 4. The conclusion is drawn in Section 5. The appendix includes the details of three performance metrics used in this paper.

The second objective is to minimize a voltage stability enhancement index (VSEI) also known as L-index (Kessel and Glavitsch, 1986) in order to incorporate the voltage stability improvement in ORPD-VS problem. It is a static voltage stability measure of power system which is computed based on normal load ow solution as presented in Vyjayanthi and Thukaram (2011) and Bansilal et al. (1996). Its value may be dened as follows:   ( ) NPV  X V   F 2 VSEI L-index max Lj 1 F ji i , j A N PQ 2  V j
i1

where all the terms within the sigma of (2) are complex quantities. The values Fji are obtained from the Y-bus matrix as follows: " # " #" # IG Y GG Y GL VG 3 IL Y LG Y LL VL where [IG], [IL] and [VG], [VL] represents the complex currents and bus voltages, respectively; whereas [YGG], [YGL], [YLG] and [YLL] are corresponding portions of network Y-bus matrix. Rearranging (3), we obtain " # " #" # VL Z LL F LG IL 4 IG RGL Y GG VG where F LG Y LL 1 Y LG 5

The value of L-index lies between 0 and 1 (Vyjayanthi and Thukaram, 2011). L-index value less than 1 (voltage collapse point) and close to 0 (no load point) indicates a system state i.e. system voltage stability margin. For a given network, as the load/ generation increases, the voltage magnitude and angles change, and for near maximum power transfer condition, the voltage stability index Lj values for load buses tends close to 1, indicating that the system is close to voltage collapse. 2.2. System constraints in multi-objective ORPD-VS Both the above mentioned objective functions (1) and (2) are optimized while satisfying following system equality and inequality constraints: 2.2.1. Equality constraints PG, i P D, i V i X
j A Ni

2. Problem formulation for multi-objective ORPD-VS The main aim of ORPD in power system operation is to maintain the bus voltage prole within permissible limits besides the minimization of total transmission loss. Therefore, an issue of voltage stability is also incorporated in multi-objective formulation called as multi-objective ORPD-VS problem. The detailed explanation of problem formulation is given in following subsections. 2.1. Objectives in multi-objective ORPD-VS In a multi-objective ORPD-VS formulation, the rst objective is to minimize the total real power loss in the transmission network i.e. TRTL, which may be dened as follows: X X 2 F 1 TRTL Pk, loss g k V 2 i V j 2V i V j cosdi dj
k A NL k A NL

V j Gij cos yij Bij sin yij 0,

8i A N B

Q G, i Q D, i V i

X
j A Ni

V j Gij sin yij Bij cos yij 0;

8i A N B

where NB is the number of buses; PG and QG are the generator real and reactive power, respectively; PD and QD are the load real and reactive power, respectively; Gij and Bij are the transfer conductance and susceptance between bus i and bus j, respectively; yij is the phase angle in radian associated with the reactance between bus i and bus j. 2.2.2. Inequality constraints

where k i, j;

i A NB ;

j A Ni

(a) Reactive power provision limits Q Gmin, i r Q G, i r Q Gmax, i ; i A NPV 8

where Pk,s is the real power loss in kth transmission lines, NL is total number of transmission lines; gk is the conductance of the kth transmission line; Vi, Vj are bus voltages in p.u. and di, dj are phase angles in radian at the end buses i.e. ith and jth of the kth transmission line, respectively.

Q Cmin, i r Q C , i r Q Cmax, i ;

i A NC

392

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

where QG, QGmin and QGmax are reactive power output of generator, its minimum and maximum limits, respectively. Similarly, QC, QCmin and QCmax are reactive power compensation provided by capacitor/inductor bank, its minimum and maximum limits, respectively. NPV and NC are total number of generator buses and capacitor/inductor banks, respectively. (b) Bus voltage limits V min r V i r V max ; i i jV i j Constant; 8i A NPQ 8i A NPV 10 11

( Plim G, k

P Gmax, k P Gmin, k

if P G, k 4 P Gmax, k if P G, k o P Gmin, k

8k 1 : N G, Slack

19

3. HFMOEA for solving multi-objective ORPD-VS problem HFMOEA approach is developed for solving complex multi-objective problems such as ORPD-VS problem. A owchart of proposed algorithm for solving of multi-objective ORPD-VS problem is shown in Fig. 1. The details of proposed HFMOEA are discussed as below. 3.1. Initialization The rst step is input power system data (i.e. bus data, generator data and line data in as specic format) and various parameters of HFMOEA such as population size (popsize), maximum numbers of iterations (max_iterations), number of control variables, system constraints limits, initial crossover probability (PC), initial mutation probability (PM) etc. 3.2. Generation of initial population Initial population is generated randomly according to following procedural steps: Step 1: Generate a string of real valued random numbers within their given variable limits to form a single individual;

and V max are bus voltages, their minimum and where Vi,V min i i maximum limits, respectively. NPQ is the total number of load buses. (c) Security constraints Sl r Smax ; l l A NL 12 13

PGmin, Slack r P G, Slack r P Gmax, Slack

is a maximum permissible where Sl is a line loading and Smax l loading limit of lth transmission line. NL is the total number of transmission lines. P Gmin, Slack and P Gmax, Slack are the minimum and maximum limits of real power output of slack bus. (d) Transformer tap-setting constraints
max T min ; k rTk r Tk

k A NT

14

where NT is total number of transformers. 2.3. Generalized augmented objective function In this paper, a static penalty function approach (Alsac and Stott, 1974; Lai et al., 1997) is used to handle the inequality constraint violations. The infeasible solutions are penalized, by applying a constant penalty to those solutions. Therefore, penalty functions corresponding to voltage violations at all load buses, reactive power violations at all generator buses, real power violations at slack bus and power ow violations at all transmission lines lVL, i , lQG, j , lPG, Slack and lS, l are included in objective function as follows: F aug Fn n X
i A N PQ 2 lVL, i V i V lim i

X
j A NG

2 lQG, j Q G, j Q lim G, j

X
k A N G, Slack

2 lPG, Slack PG, k Plim G, k

X
l A NL

2 lS, l Sl Slim l ;

8n 1 : N obj

15 where Fn is nth objective function value and the limits of dependent variables are dened as ( V lim i V max i V min i ( Q lim G, j ( Slim l Q Gmax, j Q Gmin, j Smax l Smin l if V i 4 V max i if V i o V min i ; 8i 1 : N PQ 16

if Q G, j 4 Q Gmax, j if Q G, j o Q Gmin, j

8j 1 : NPV

17

if Sl 4 Smax l if Sl o Smin l

8l 1 : N L

18

Fig. 1. Flowchart for HFMOEA process for solving multi-objective ORPD-VS problem.

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

393

Step 2: Run NewtonRaphson based load ow analysis on randomly generated individual to evaluate both objective functions as well as constraint violations; Step 3: Check if load ow analysis is not converged, go to step 1; Step 4: Place the individual as valid individual in initial population; Step 5: Evaluate tness value for valid individual; Step 6: Check if the initial population has not completed then go to step 1.

augmented functions as determined in (15). Thus the tness function (Hn,l) of nth objective for lth individual is evaluated as Hn, l Kn ; 8n 1 : N obj and 8l 1 : popsize 1 F aug n, l 20

3.3. Non-domination sorting The generated initial population is sorted on the basis of nondomination sorting algorithm as suggested in Refs. Deb (2001) and Deb et al. (2002). 3.4. Evolutionary operators For producing the new population for next iteration, the following evolutionary operators are applied to parent population: K Selection: Tournament selection operator (Deb, 2001; Deb et al., 2002) is used for reproducing the mating pool of parent individuals for crossover and mutation operations. K Crossover: The BLX-a crossover (Deb, 2001) is applied on randomly selected pairs of parent individuals with a crossover probability (PC) which is a combination of an extrapolation/ interpolation method. K Mutation: The PCA based Mutation (Saraswat and Saini, 2011) with mutation probability (PM) is applied to generate the offspring population.

where Nobj is the total number of objectives, F aug is an augmented n, l function computed by (15) of nth objective for lth individual and Kn is the appropriate constant corresponding to nth objective which depends on the nature of problem. These constants are chosen in such a manner that normalized tness values of any individual must remain within range [0 1.0] in order to re correct fuzzy rule. 3.7. Best compromise solution Upon having the Pareto-optimal set of non-dominated solution using proposed HFMOEA approach, an approach proposed in Dhillon et al. (1993) selects one solution to the decision maker as the best compromise solution as used in Abido and Bakhashwain (2005). This approach suggests that due to imprecise nature of the decision makers judgment, the ith objective function Fi is represented by a membership function mi dened as in Dhillon et al. (1993): 8 1 F i r F min > i > > < F max F i i F min o F i o F max min 21 mi F max i i F i i > > > min :0 Fi Z Fi where F min and F max are the minimum and maximum values of the i i ith objective function among all non-dominated solutions, respectively. For each jth non-dominated solution, the normalized membership function mj is calculated as
obj mj 1 i mj PN i P N obj dom

PN

3.5. Criterion to prepare population for next iteration After the execution of above evolutionary operators, offspring population is checked to prepare new population for next iteration by going through following procedural steps, till the termination condition is not satised: Step 1: Run the NewtonRaphson based load ow analysis on each individual in offspring population to evaluate tness values corresponding to both objective functions as well as constraint violations; Step 2: Combine the parent and offspring population to obtain the intermediate population which ensures elitism; Step 3: Perform the non-domination sorting algorithm on intermediate population; Step 4: Remove the worse individuals based on their crowding distance in the ascending order until the population size is equal to popsize to maintain the new population size constant. Here the new population for next iteration is prepared; Step 5: Check if k iterations are completed go to next step 6 otherwise go to step 7; Step 6: Update HFMOEA parameters (i.e. PC and PM) by using fuzzy logic controller (FLC_MOEA); Step 7: Check the termination condition of HFMOEA i.e. if the current iteration number is equal to max_iterations, terminate the iteration process otherwise go to next iteration; Step 8: Select the best compromise solution using fuzzy set theory. 3.6. Normalized tness function The tness function corresponding to each individual in the population is assigned based on their respective generalized

j1

i1

mji

22

where Ndom is the number of non-dominated solutions. The best compromise solution is that having the maximum value of mi. Therefore, based on above criterion, the best compromised individual is selected from current population. Let Hbc n denotes a normalized tness value corresponding to nth objective as determined by (20) for a best compromised individual. Hbc n is required to evaluate one of the fuzzy variables used in fuzzy logic controller as explained in next subsection. 3.8. Fuzzy logic controller In most of the MOEAs reported in literature, the various algorithm parameters such as crossover and mutation probabilities are initialized at the beginning of MOEAs execution and kept constant throughout the optimization process. These MOEA parameters greatly inuence the convergence of optimization process and often become very critical by limiting its performance to reach the global optimum. Moreover, it has been experienced that it may lead to slow convergence and seldom trapped into local pareto-optimal solutions. In this situation, a large change in the decision vector (i.e. control variables vector) is needed to get out of a local optimum. Unless mutation or crossover operators are capable of creating solutions in the basin of another better attractor, the improvement in the convergence toward the true pareto-optimal front is not possible (Deb et al., 2002). Therefore, based on this knowledge, a fuzzy logic controller FLC_MOEA is designed for adjusting PC and PM dynamically during the optimization process. The block diagram of FLC_MOEA is shown in Fig. 2. It incorporates three major blocks i.e. fuzzication, approximate reasoning and defuzzication as described below.

394

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Fig. 2. Block diagram of fuzzy logic controller (FLC_MOEA).

Fig. 3. Input and output membership functions for fuzzy logic controller.

3.8.1. Fuzzication In proposed FLC_MOEA, there are three input fuzzy variables such as best compromised tness (BCF), number of iterations for unchanged best compromised tness value (UN) and variance of the tness values of all individueals within offspring population (VF), which are dened as below: BCF minfHbc n g; 8n 1 : N obj VF minfvarHn, l g; 8n 1 : N obj and 8l 1 : popsize UN minfUNbc n g; 8n 1 : N obj 23 24 25

rules are framed as conditional statements, which are listed as below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. If (BCF is low) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is medium) and (UN is low) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is high) and (UN is low) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is medium) and (UN is medium) then (PC is medium) (PM is medium) (1) If (BCF is high) and (UN is medium) then (PC is medium) (1) If (UN is high) and (VF is low) then (PC is low) (PM is high) (1) If (UN is high) and (VF is medium) then (PC is low) (1) If (UN is high) and (VF is high) then (PC is medium) (1) If (BCF is high) and (VF is medium) then (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is high) and (VF is high) then (PM is low) (1) If (VF is high) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (VF is medium) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is high) and (VF is low) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1) If (BCF is medium) and (VF is medium) then (PC is low) (PM is high) (1) If (BCF is low) and (UN is low) and (VF is low) then (PC is high) (PM is low) (1)

where UNn is the number of iterations for unchanged best compromised tness value corresponding to nth objective. Thus the ranges of three input fuzzy variables (BCF, UN and VF) and also two output fuzzy variables (PC and PM) are repersented by three lingustic terms as LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH. Among a set of membership functions, left-triangle, triangle and right-triangle membership functions are used for every input and output variables of FLC_MOEA as illustrated in Fig. 3. 3.8.2. Approximate reasoning In order to deal with uncertainty, an approximate reasoning is established for inference which includes a fuzzy rule base and fuzzy inference engine as described below. 3.8.2.1. Fuzzy rule base. The following important considerations are taken into account to form the fuzzy rule base:

15.

 BCF for each iteration is expected to change over a number of

iterations, but if it does not change signicantly over a number of iterations (UN) then this information is considered to cause changes in both PC and PM. The diversity of a population is one of the factors, which inuences the search for a true pareto-optimal solution. The variance of the tness values of objective function (VF) of a population is a measure of its diversity. Hence, it is considered as another factor on which both PC and PM may be changed.

The Mamdani-type fuzzy rule is used to formulate the conditional statements that comprise fuzzy logic. Total 15 Mamdani-type

3.8.2.2. Fuzzy inference engine. The fuzzy implication is modelled by Mamdanis minimum operator and the sentence connective also is interpreted as oring the propositions and dened by max operator. The AND operator is typically used to combine the membership values for each red rule to generate the membership values for the fuzzy sets of output variables in the consequent part of the rule. In order to interpret the entire fuzzy inference process at once, a fuzzy inference diagram for FLC_MOEA is presented in Fig. 4. In this gure, the ve small plots in each row represent the antecedent and consequent of the particular rule. Hence, each rule is a row of plots, and each column is a variable. The rst three columns of plots show the membership functions referenced by the antecedent, or the if-part of each rule. The fourth and fth columns of plots show the membership functions referenced by

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

395

Fig. 4. Fuzzy inference diagram for FLC_MOEA (generated in the Matlab Fuzzy Logic Toolbox).

0.9 Pc Pc 0.85 0.8 20 10 UN 0.5 0 0

BCF

0.9 0.85 0.8 0.2 0.1 VF 0 0 0.5 BCF Pc

0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.2 0.1 VF 10 0 0

UN

20

0.06 0.05 Pm Pm 0.04 0.03 0.02 20 10 UN 0 0 0.5 BCF 1

0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.2 0.1 VF 0 0 0.5 BCF 1 0.02 0.2 0.1 VF 0 0 10 UN 20 Pm 0.06 0.04

Fig. 5. Rule surfaces for fuzzy inference in FLC_MOEA.

the consequent, or the then-part of each rule. The bottom most plots in fourth and fth column represent the aggregate weighted decision values of PC and PM. This diagram may be used as a diagnostic for the performance of 15 fuzzy rules. For example, it shows that which rules are active, or how individual membership function shapes are inuencing the results. Further, the three dimensional rule surfaces are plotted in Fig. 5 to display the dependency of any one of two outputs (i.e. PC and PM) on any two of the three inputs (i.e. BCF, UN and VF) of FLC_MOEA. 3.8.3. Defuzzication The method of centroid (center-of-sums) as dened in (26) is used for defuzzication. The defuzzied output values of FLC_MOEA are directly acceptable values of HFMOEA parameters, for example: outputs Y1 0.85 and Y2 0.02 represent the crossover and mutation probabilities, respectively in HFMOEA. Z X n n .Z X Y y:mBi ydy mBi ydy 26
y i1 y i1

In brief, FLC_MOEA is used to provide a kind of adaptability to HFMOEA by online tuning of its signicant parameters in order to enhance the capability to reach near true pareto-optimal solution. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed HFMOEA lies in the fact that the determination of the heuristic parameters is assigned to the fuzzy system, in contrast to the previously developed MOEAs.

4. Numerical results and discussion In this section, two case studies are conducted for evaluating the strength of the proposed HFMOEA approach. In rst case study, the performance of HFMOEA is veried on ve benchmark test problems namely as ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4 and ZDT6. In second case study, HFMOEA is applied to multi-objective ORPD-VS problem as described in Section 2. In both these case studies, the proposed HFMOEA is tested and compared with two elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms such as a real-coded NSGA-II (Deb et al., 2002) and its modied version called as MNSGA-II (Jeyadevi et al., 2011). The difference between NSGA-II and MNSGA-II is that MNSGA-II incorporates the concept of dynamic crowding distance

where the input for the defuzzication process is a fuzzy set mBi y (the aggregate output fuzzy set) and the output is a single number Y.

396

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

along with controlled elitism as suggested in Ref. Jeyadevi et al. (2011). Both NSGA-II and MNSGA-II include a simulated binary crossover (SBX) (Deb and Agarwal, 1995) and a polynomial mutation with distribution indexes (Deb et al., 2002) as Zc 20 and Zm 20 for crossover and mutation operators, respectively. These distribution indexes and their probabilities such as PC 0.95 and PM 0.015 are xed throughout the optimization process for NSGA-II and MNSGA-II. In HFMOEA, a BLX-a crossover and PCA-mutation operators are used as in Ref. Saraswat and Saini (2011) with dynamically varying probabilities (PC and PM) after every ten iterations based on fuzzy logic controller (FLC_MOEA) as described in Section 3. All the simulations are carried out in MATLAB 7.0 programming environment on Pentium IV 2.27 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM computer system. 4.1. Performance assessment In multi-objective optimization processes (MOPs), there are two distinct and orthogonal goals (Deb, 2001) as follows: (1) discover solutions as close to the true pareto-optimal solutions as possible, and (2) nd solutions as diverse as possible in the obtained non-dominated front. Therefore, in order to compare two or more MOEAs, at least two performance metrics (one evaluating the progress towards the true pareto-optimal front i.e. Pn and the other evaluating the spread of obtained paretofront i.e. Q) need to be used. In both the case studies, three different performance metrics such as spacing (S), generational distance (GD) and hypervolume (HV) are used for numerical comparison of the pareto-optimal fronts produced by three MOEAs. The exact denitions of these three performance metrics are given in the Appendix. The metric GD is used to evaluate the progress towards the pareto-optimal front and the metrics S is used to evaluate the spread of the obtained non-dominated
Table 1 Details of benchmark test problems used in case study 1. Test problem Variable bounds and number of variables [0, 1] and n 30 Objective functions

solutions. The metric HV provides the combined qualitative information about closeness and diversity in obtained paretooptimal fronts. 4.2. Case study 1: benchmark test problems In order to examine the performance, all three MOEAs i.e. NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA are tested and compared on ve benchmark test problems such as ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4 and ZDT6 as suggested by Zitzler et al. (2000). All ve test problems have two objective functions as described in Table 1. None of these problems have any constraint. Table 1 also shows the number of variables, their bounds, the pareto-optimal solutions, and the nature of the pareto-optimal front for each test problem i.e. whether it is convex or non-convex, continuous or discontinuous. Three test cases are considered, in which the performance of MOEAs are evaluated for maximum number of iterations such as 300, 500 and 1000 for case 1.1, case 1.2 and case 1.3, respectively. For all ve test problems, 20 independent simulation runs are performed with same constant population size of 100 in all the three cases. For all these ZDT problems, the values of constants Kn for HFMOEA are taken as K 1 1 and K 2 1 based on explanation given in Section 3.6. The results in terms of best compromised solutions obtained after optimization are given in Table 2. Further, the statistical results in terms of mean and variance of three performance metrics (i.e. S, GD and HV) in 20 simulation runs are also listed in Tables 3 and 4. The best pareto-optimal fronts obtained from all three MOEAs are depicted in Figs. 6 and 7. On the basis of this case study, some of the major observations are made as follows: In both aspects of convergence and distribution of solutions, HFMOEA performed better than both MNSGA-II and NSGA-II. Hence, proposed HFMOEA provides the better pareto-optimal

Remark

ZDT1

f 1 x x1 and f 2 x g x1 g x 1

q f 1 =g x

Optimal solutions x1A[0, 1], xi 0, i 2:n (convex pareto-front)

n 9 X x n1 i 2 i

ZDT2

[0, 1] and n 30

f 1 x x1 and f 2 x g x1f 1 =g x2 n 9 X x g x 1 n1 i 2 i

Optimal solutions x1A[0, 1], xi 0, i 2:n (non-convex pareto-front)

ZDT3

[0, 1] and n 30

f 1 x x1 and

f 2 x g x 1 g x 1

s ! f1 f 1 sin10pf 1 g x g x

Optimal solutions x1A[0, 1], xi 0, i 2:n (convex and discontinuous pareto-front)

n 9 X x n1 i 2 i

ZDT4

x1 A 0, 1, xi 5, 5, i2 : n and n 10

f 1 x x1 and f 2 x g x1

q f 1 =g x
n X

Optimal solutions x1A[0, 1], xi 0, i 2:n (non-convex pareto-front having 21 multi-local pareto-fronts)

g x 1 10n1

x2 i 10 cos4pxi

i2

ZDT6

[0, 1] and n 10

f 1 x 1exp4x1 sin6 6px1 f 2 x g x1f 1 x=g x2 " ! #0:25 n X g x 1 9 xi =n1

i2

Optimal solutions x1A[0, 1], xi 0, i 2:n (non-convex, non-uniformly distributed pareto-front)

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

397

fronts and performance metrics as compared to NSGA-II and MNSGA-II for all ve ZDT test problems in all the three cases. HFMOEA required only 300 iterations to arrive very close to true pareto-optimal fronts except for ZDT4. In contrast, MNSGA-II has improved convergence compared to NSGA-II, but not better than HFMOEA. In fact, NSGA-II could not be satisfactorily converged particularly in case 1.1 and case 1.2 in 300 and 500 iterations, respectively.

Table 2. Best compromised solutions obtained using different MOEAs for ZDT benchmark test problems. Test problem MOEA Case 1.1 f1 (x) ZDT1 NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA 0.1557 0.2450 0.2838 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.2505 0.2567 0.2507 0.2596 0.2492 0.2704 0.2808 0.2808 0.2808 f2 (x) 0.9129 0.6873 0.4693 1.2949 1.1188 0.0020 0.6376 0.4781 0.2579 2.1168 1.2941 1.0715 0.9221 0.9232 0.9232 Case 1.2 f1 (x) 0.2593 0.2482 0.2543 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.2503 0.2444 0.2485 0.2511 0.2472 0.2532 0.2808 0.2808 0.2838 f2 (x) 0.6503 0.5930 0.4967 0.2403 1.0824 0.0011 0.4431 0.3280 0.2565 1.2903 0.6939 0.4970 0.9319 0.9296 0.9206 Case 1.3 f1 (x) 0.2432 0.2487 0.2602 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2502 0.2465 0.2494 0.2540 0.2526 0.2474 0.2826 0.2838 1.0000 f2 (x) 0.5474 0.5344 0.4905 1.0333 1.0282 1.0002 0.3113 0.2967 0.2541 0.6863 0.4974 0.5027 0.9212 0.9206 0.0006

ZDT2

The problem ZDT4 has 21 different local Pareto-optimal fronts in the search space, of which only one corresponds to the global Paretooptimal front (Deb and Agarwal, 1995). Therefore, Fig. 7ac show that both NSGA-II and MNSGA-II get stuck at different local Paretooptimal sets, but HFMOEA managed to reach near global paretooptimal solution in 500 iterations whereas MNSGA-II in 1000 iterations. Hence based on above analysis, it may be concluded that HFMOEA has higher convergence rate as well as ability to produce more diversied population during the optimization process in comparison to MNSGA-II and NSGA-II for obtaining better paretooptimal fronts. This is because of the variations occurred in HFMOEA parameters such as PC and PM according to output of fuzzy logic controller (FLC_MOEA) based on the state of optimization process and nature of problem. The variations in PC and PM for all ve test problems in case 1.2 are shown in Fig. 8. It has been observed that these variations are depending upon the type of objective functions in such a manner that if PC is going to reduce, PM will increase (see Fig. 8) and vice-versa. These variations in PC and PM would improve the stochastic search to arrive at near true pareto-optimal front as clear from Figs. 6 and 7.

ZDT3

4.3. Case study 2: ORPD-VS problem In this case study, HFMOEA is applied to multi-objective ORPD-VS problem on IEEE 24 bus Reliability Test System (IEEE 24 bus RTS) data (Reliability Test System Task Force, 1999). The single line diagram of IEEE 24 bus RTS is shown in Fig. 9. This power system consists of 32 synchronous generators, 1 synchronous condenser (located at bus 14), and 17 constant-power type

ZDT4

ZDT6

Table 3. Statistical results: performance metrics obtained using different MOEAs for ZDT1, ZDT2 and ZDT3 problems. Performance metric MOEA Case 1.1 Mean Test problem: ZDT1 S St. dev. Case 1.2 Mean St. dev. Case 1.3 Mean St. dev.

GD

HV

NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA

0.008647 0.007350 0.006932 0.028731 0.012375 0.000430 0.281770 0.497187 0.658275 0.006502 0.007070 0.007392 0.026183 0.005039 0.000634 0.054990 0.250775 0.324968 0.007414 0.007944 0.007741 0.026016 0.012640 0.000784 0.489953 0.792205 1.033370

0.001612 0.000891 0.000424 0.007559 0.016692 0.000104 0.101421 0.225151 0.000468 0.002506 0.000873 0.000688 0.009660 0.007244 0.000026 0.105081 0.122343 0.000505 0.001954 0.001679 0.000820 0.005010 0.015361 0.000042 0.067746 0.312392 0.001324

0.006731 0.006959 0.007042 0.010190 0.004587 0.000378 0.521899 0.601199 0.659622 0.007155 0.006797 0.006999 0.010804 0.002824 0.000610 0.174182 0.292273 0.326338 0.007258 0.007523 0.008098 0.009984 0.005268 0.000758 0.803642 0.926712 1.037140

0.000725 0.000683 0.000676 0.002707 0.005907 0.000079 0.034666 0.081154 0.000268 0.001596 0.000930 0.000761 0.002853 0.003590 0.000027 0.039172 0.055168 0.000289 0.001093 0.000731 0.000464 0.002111 0.005884 0.000033 0.042095 0.143228 0.000597

0.006787 0.006948 0.006946 0.002849 0.001391 0.000365 0.621478 0.644586 0.660395 0.007058 0.006943 0.007049 0.003368 0.001201 0.000616 0.279839 0.316661 0.327216 0.007764 0.008123 0.008657 0.002022 0.001265 0.000731 0.975299 1.012377 1.039740

0.000920 0.000907 0.000636 0.000591 0.001331 0.000059 0.008380 0.020800 0.000267 0.000622 0.000768 0.000685 0.001051 0.000940 0.000035 0.015571 0.017197 0.000204 0.000948 0.001073 0.000738 0.000274 0.000696 0.000026 0.007061 0.035590 0.000353

Test problem: ZDT2 S

GD

HV

Test problem: ZDT3 S

GD

HV

398

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Table 4. Statistical results: performance metrics obtained using different MOEAs for ZDT4 and ZDT6 test problems. Performance metric MOEA Case 1.1 Mean Test problem: ZDT4 S St. dev. Case 1.2 Mean St. dev. Case 1.3 Mean St. dev.

GD

HV

NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA

0.008067 0.021425 0.027542 0.049739 0.096853 0.099785 0.052112 0.081216 0.126608 0.117645 0.077437 0.020874 0.080856 0.065238 0.016950 0.038951 0.187740 0.319888

0.001472 0.024936 0.026327 0.045548 0.065967 0.089314 0.559137 0.783381 0.800654 0.098607 0.088396 0.021172 0.032359 0.044071 0.007913 0.255896 0.217011 0.001585

0.008371 0.012979 0.013147 0.049769 0.053267 0.026820 0.152223 0.225375 0.331244 0.132966 0.131111 0.015914 0.036474 0.032997 0.007663 0.308596 0.319508 0.320565

0.001343 0.008140 0.008606 0.045292 0.040270 0.018238 0.359247 0.498928 0.221854 0.151589 0.153139 0.014416 0.022409 0.025008 0.005295 0.030045 0.001843 0.000849

0.008105 0.008072 0.007268 0.050363 0.036838 0.000610 0.185275 0.312264 0.660554 0.144471 0.137657 0.013010 0.022620 0.017243 0.002416 0.320049 0.320522 0.320955

0.001153 0.000954 0.000820 0.046170 0.052026 0.000027 0.559230 0.635666 0.000424 0.184881 0.189190 0.007630 0.020581 0.022390 0.001447 0.000778 0.000502 0.000202

Test problem: ZDT6 S

GD

HV

True pareto-front 1.5

Objective 2 : F2 Objective 2 : F2

NSGA-II 1.5 1 0.5 0

MNSGA-II 1.5
Objective 2 : F2

HFMOEA

1 0.5 0

1 0.5 0

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

0.2

0.4 0.6 Objective 1 : F1

0.8

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

1.5
Objective 2 : F2 Objective 2 : F2

1.5
Objective 2 : F2

1.5 1 0.5 0

1 0.5 0

1 0.5 0

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

2
Objective 2 : F2 Objective 2 : F2

1.5
Objective 2 : F2

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1 1

1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Objective 1 : F1 0.8 1

-1

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

Fig. 6. Best pareto-optimal fronts obtained using NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA for ZDT1, ZDT2 and ZDT3 test problems: (a) Case 1.1 for ZDT1, (b) Case 1.2 for ZDT1, (c) Case 1.3 for ZDT1, (d) Case 1.1 for ZDT2, (e) Case 1.2 for ZDT2, (f) Case 1.3 for ZDT2, (g) Case 1.1 for ZDT3, (h) Case 1.2 for ZDT3 and (i) Case 1.3 for ZDT3.

loads. The system total active and reactive loads are 2850 MW and 580 MVAr, respectively. In IEEE 24 bus RTS, system control variables for ORPD-VS are such as 11 generator bus voltage

magnitudes, ve transformer tap-settings, and one bus shunt admittances. Therefore in this case study, the search space has 17 dimensions. The lower and upper limits of all bus voltages are

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

399

True pareto-front 3 2

NSGA-II

MNSGA-II 1.5

HFMOEA

Objective 2 : F2

Objective 2 : F2

Objective 2 : F2
0 0.5 Objective 1 : F1 1

1.5 1 0.5 0

0.5

0.5 Objective 1 : F1

0.5 Objective 1 : F1

1.5

1.5

Objective 2 : F2

Objective 2 : F2

Objective 2 : F2
0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1 1

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1 1

0.5

0.5

0 0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 Objective 1 : F1

0 0.2

Fig. 7. Best pareto-optimal fronts obtained using NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA for ZDT4 and ZDT6 test problems: (a) Case 1.1 for ZDT4, (b) Case 1.2 for ZDT4, (c) Case 1.3 for ZDT4, (d) Case 1.1 for ZDT6, (e) Case 1.2 for ZDT6 and (f) Case 1.3 for ZDT6.

1 0.9 0.8
Pm Pc

0.03 0.02 0.01

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Iteration No.

Iteration No.

0.95
Pm

0.03 0.02 0.01

0.9 0.85

Pc

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Iteration No.

Iteration No.

1 0.9 0.8
Pm Pc

0.03 0.02 0.01

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Iteration No.

Iteration No.

1
Pm

0.03 0.02 0.01

0.95 0.9

Pc

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Iteration No.

Iteration No.

0.95
Pm

0.03 0.02 0.01

0.9 0.85

Pc

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Iteration No.

Iteration No.

Fig. 8. Variations in PC and PM during the HFMOEA based optimization for ZDT test problems in case 1.2: (a) Case 1.2 for ZDT1, (b) Case 1.2 for ZDT2, (c) Case 1.2 for ZDT3, (d) Case 1.2 for ZDT4 and (e) Case 1.2 for ZDT6.

400

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Objective 1 : Total Real Transmission Loss (TRTL) (MW)

0.95 p.u. and 1.05 p.u., respectively. The lower and upper limits are 0.9 p.u. and 1.1 p.u, respectively. In order to maintain the consistency for comparison, the ORPD-VS simulations are divided into ve different test cases such as case 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. In rst two test cases, the ORPD-VS problem is treated as single objective optimization problem i.e. only TRTL in case 2.1 and only VSEI in case 2.2 are considered as single objectives for ORPD-VS optimization. In single objective framework, the real coded genetic algorithm (RCGA) (Saraswat and Saini, 2011) is used to optimize an appropriate objective function while satisfying all equality and inequality constraints (6)(14). The last three test cases are considered as pure multi-objective ORPD-VS frameworks as described in Section 2. Both the objective functions i.e. TRTL and VSEI are optimized simultaneously using NAGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA in cases 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, respectively. For all the ve test cases, 20 independent simulation runs are carried out with similar parameters for all optimization algorithms taken as: the number of maximum iterations (max_iterations 500), population size (popsize 200) and penalty factors (lVL, i 100, lQG, j 50, lPG, Slack 50 and lS, l 50). In this case study, the values of constants Kn are selected after

conducting several initial independent runs of HFMOEA with various settings of K1 and K2 and their appropriate values are K 1 38 and K 2 0:15 based on explanation given in Section 3.6. The detailed specications of all optimization algorithms are summarized in Table 5. The best optimization results obtained from 20 simulation runs for all 5 test cases are summarized in Table 6. The bold values in Table 6, represents the optimized objective function values obtained in ORPD-VS. In single objective ORPD-VS framework, the optimized solutions are (38.51 MW, 0.1832) when only TRTL is minimized in case 2.1 and (41.29 MW and 0.1601) when only VSEI is minimized in case 2.2. The best obtained pareto-optimal fronts in multi-objective ORPD-VS using NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA are shown in Fig. 10. The best compromised solutions are selected as (38.98 MW and 0.1675), (39.12 MW and 0.1656) and (38.99 MW and 0.1663) for three cases 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, respectively. It is clear from Fig. 10 that
42 Reference Pareto-front NSGA-II MNSGA-II HFMOEA

41.5

41

40.5

40

39.5

X: 0.1656 Y: 39.12

X: 0.1675 Y: 38.98

39
X: 0.1663 Y: 38.99

38.5

38 0.155

0.16

0.165

0.17

0.175

0.18

Objective 2 : Voltage Stability Enhancement Index (L-index)

Fig. 10. Best pareto-optimal fronts obtained using NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA for multi-objective ORPD-VS.

Fig. 9. Single line diagram of IEEE 24 bus RTS.

Table 5. Specications of optimization algorithms in ORPD-VS problem. Algorithm parameters Number of control variables Population size (Popsize) Selection operator Crossover operator Mutation operator Crossover probability (PC) Mutation probability (PM) Maximum no. of iterations RCGA 17 200 Roulette wheel BLX-a PCA mutation 0.95 0.015 500 NSGA-II 17 200 Tournament SBX Polynomial 0.95 0.015 500 MNSGA-II 17 200 Tournament SBX Polynomial 0.95 0.015 500 HFMOEA 17 200 Tournament BLX-a PCA mutation varying based on FLC output varying based on FLC output 500

Table 6. Summary of best optimization results obtained for ORPD-VS problem in twenty simulation runs. Optimization framework Algorithm Test case Objective function TRTL VSEI Single-objective ORPD RCGA Case 2.1 TRTL 38.51 0.1832 Case 2.2 VSEI 41.29 0.1601 Multi-objective ORPD-VS NSGA-II Case 2.3 TRTL & VSEI 38.98 0.1675 MNSGA-II Case 2.4 TRTL & VSEI 39.12 0.1656 HFMOEA Case 2.5 TRTL & VSEI 38.99 0.1663

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

401

the pareto-optimal front and best compromised solution obtained using HFMOEA are superior as compared to the same obtained using NSGA-II and MNSGA-II. Further, the statistical results in terms of mean and variance of three performance metrics (i.e. S, GD and HV) in 20 simulation runs for multi-objective ORPD-VS problem using all three MOEAs are also summarized in Table 7. In order to generate the reference pareto-front for multi-objective ORPD-VS problem, the similar procedure involving multiple runs of single objective RCGA with weighted sum of objectives is adopted as suggested in Jeyadevi et al. (2011). The variations in PC and PM for HFMOEA for case 2.5 are shown in Fig. 11.

The system output control variables such as generator bus voltages, transformer tap-settings and shunt inductor obtained after optimization for ORPD-VS problem in all ve test cases are given in Table 8. The generators reactive power output schedules obtained after optimization in ORPD-VS in all ve test cases are listed in Table 9. It is clear that the total reactive power generation is achieved as extreme values i.e. minimum in case 2.1 and maximum in case 2.2, which are the cases of single objective optimization framework (see Table 9). The total reactive power generation is of moderate values obtained in multi-objective optimization frameworks as in cases 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

Table 7. Statistical results: performance metrics obtained using different MOEAs for multi-objective ORPD-VS problem. Performance metric Case 2.3: NSGA-II Mean GD S HV 0.002028 0.006277 0.134860 St. dev. 0.081224 0.006020 0.204800 Case 2.4: MNSGA-II Mean 0.000773 0.007127 0.136030 St. dev. 0.013292 0.001992 0.031210 Case 2.5: HFMOEA Mean 0.000725 0.006139 0.138950 St. dev. 0.007227 0.002229 0.001764

Crossover Probability (Pc)

Mutation Probability (Pm)

0.95

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

0.9

0.85 0 100 200 300 400 Iteration No. 500

100

200 300 400 Iteration No.

500

Fig. 11. Variations in PC and PM during HFMOEA based optimization for ORPD-VS problem.

Table 8. System output control variables obtained after optimization for ORPD-VS problem. Optimization framework Optimization algorithm Bus no. ID Single-objective ORPD RCGA Case 2.1 Case 2.2 Multi-objective ORPD-VS NSGA-II Case 2.3 MNSGA-II Case 2.4 HFMOEA Case 2.5

Generator bus voltages (p.u.) 1 VG1 2 VG2 7 VG7 13 VG13 14 VG14 15 VG15 16 VG16 18 VG18 21 VG21 22 VG22 23 VG23 Transformer tap-settings (p.u.) 324 T3 24 911 T9 11 912 T9 12 1011 T10 11 1012 T10 12 Shunt inductor (MVA-r) 6 QC6

1.0190 1.0204 1.0500 1.0496 1.0372 1.0360 1.0402 1.0493 1.0490 1.0500 1.0500 1.03 1.04 1.01 0.98 0.97

1.0494 1.0499 1.0500 1.0488 1.0310 1.0186 1.0255 1.0289 1.0348 1.0488 1.0500 1.07 1.06 1.05 0.94 0.95

1.0500 1.0500 1.0500 1.0498 1.0372 1.0325 1.0358 1.0394 1.0432 1.0499 1.0499 1.06 1.06 1.04 0.99 0.97

1.0498 1.0500 1.0500 1.0500 1.0410 1.0345 1.0392 1.0444 1.0451 1.0500 1.0500 1.06 1.04 1.03 0.98 0.96

1.0500 1.0500 1.0498 1.0500 1.0393 1.0360 1.0394 1.0451 1.0475 1.0500 1.0499 1.07 1.05 1.03 0.97 0.98

83.71

165.52

132.23

139.20

156.96

402

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Table 9. Generators reactive power output schedule obtained after optimization for ORPD-VS problem. Optimization framework Optimization algorithm Bus no. Unit no. Single-objective ORPD RCGA Case 2.1 QG (MVAr) 3.68 3.68 4.75 4.75 4.57 4.57 0.15 0.15 19.60 19.60 19.60 38.60 38.60 38.60 88.64 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 57.33 51.62 83.43 4.35 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88 8.69 8.69 30.61 469.96 Case 2.2 QG (MVAr) 7.39 7.39 15.66 15.66 7.90 7.90 18.48 18.48 21.20 21.20 21.20 41.79 41.79 41.79 96.81 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 33.57 28.20 8.99 48.96 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 2.10 2.10 45.14 573.24 Multi-objective ORPD-VS NSGA-II Case 2.3 QG (MVAr) 5.84 5.84 7.10 7.10 5.74 5.74 6.57 6.57 16.69 16.69 16.69 40.31 40.31 40.31 104.46 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 72.80 38.85 31.66 19.02 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 6.27 6.27 33.87 518.68 MNSGA-II Case 2.4 QG (MVAr) 6.1052 6.1052 8.5786 8.5786 6.3863 6.3863 10.125 10.125 18.049 18.049 18.049 37.485 37.485 37.485 106.83 5.3739 5.3739 5.3739 5.3739 5.3739 66.434 49.979 62.882 3.0961 4.3626 4.3626 4.3626 4.3626 4.3626 4.3626 8.5601 8.5601 30.784 526.38 HFMOEA Case 2.5 QG (MVAr) 5.92 5.92 7.54 7.54 6.03 6.03 8.18 8.18 17.32 17.32 17.32 39.14 39.14 39.14 95.27 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 73.57 45.81 50.60 18.14 5.05 5.05 5.05 5.05 5.05 5.05 7.81 7.81 31.79 522.44

QG1_1 QG1_2 QG1_3 QG1_4 QG2_1 QG2_2 QG2_3 QG2_4 QG7_1 QG7_2 QG7_3 QG13_1 QG13_2 QG13_3 QG14 QG15_1 QG15_2 QG15_3 QG15_4 QG15_5 QG15_6 QG16 QG18 QG21 QG22_1 QG22_2 QG22_3 QG22_4 QG22_5 QG22_6 QG23_1 QG23_2 QG23_3

13

14 15

16 18 21 22

23

Total systems reactive power generation

The reactive power generation output schedule obtained after optimization using HFMOEA (best compromised solution) is graphically shown as in Fig. 12. There is no violation in generators reactive power outputs, in other words all the generators reactive power output values are within their corresponding ranges of minimum and maximum permissible limits in case 2.5. Further, the bus voltage proles obtained after optimization for ORPD-VS in all ve test cases are compared as shown in Fig. 13. It is noticed that the bus voltage proles obtained in multi-objective ORPD-VS problem are more at as compared to the same obtained in single-objective ORPD-VS problem. Hence, on the basis of this analysis, it is clear that multi-objective optimization framework may provide superior optimal solutions as compared to single objective optimization ORPD-VS approach for taking better dispatch decisions by system operator.

5. Conclusion In this work, ORPD-VS has been formulated as a multiobjective problem, in which two competing objective functions such as total real transmission loss and voltage stability enhancement index are optimized simultaneously in a single run. A new

HFMOEA is proposed for solving complex nonlinear multi-objective optimization problems such as ORPD-VS. The main contribution of the proposed HFMOEA algorithm lies in the design of fuzzy logic controller to adjust two signicant parameters (i.e. PC and PM) during the optimization process which improves its overall performance. Three different MOEAs such as NSGA-II, MNSGA-II and HFMOEA are tested and compared for ve benchmark test problems (i.e. ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4 and ZDT6) and also for multi-objective ORPD-VS problem on standard IEEE 24 RTS. Three multi-objective performance metrics such as spacing, generational distance and hypervolume are used for evaluating the overall performance and quality of pareto-optimal fronts obtained from all three MOEAs. Some of the major ndings of present work may be concluded in two perspectives. Firstly, in context to optimization framework for ORPD-VS, it is observed that the bus voltage proles obtained in multi-objective formulations are more at as compared to the same obtained in single-objective formulation. Therefore, a multi-objective optimization framework provides a set of superior optimal solutions as compared to single objective optimization framework for ORPD-VS. Secondly, as far as algorithmic performance is concerned, it is found that HFMOEA provides superior results in terms of performance metrics as compared to NSGA-II and MNSGA-II, hence able to

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

403

Fig. 12. Generators reactive power output schedule obtained after optimization using HFMOEA.

1.1

Maximum permissible bus voltage limit

1.05

Bus Voltage (p.u.)

Case2.1: RCGA Case 2.2: RCGA 0.95 Minimum permissible bus voltage limit Case 2.3: NSGA-II Case 2.4: MNSGA-II Case 2.5: HFMOEA

0.9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Bus Number

Fig. 13. Bus voltage proles obtained after optimization for ORPD-VS problem.

generate better pareto-optimal fronts in both the case studies. Therefore, the proposed HFMOEA based multi-objective ORPD-VS problem helps a power system operator to take better dispatch decisions on the basis of pareto-optimal solutions as compared to other MOEAs.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions which greatly encouraged them to improve the papers quality.

404

A. Saraswat, A. Saini / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 26 (2013) 390404

Appendix. Performance metrics In this paper, following three performance metrics are used to evaluate and compare the optimization performance of different MOEAs. A.1. Spacing (S) The spacing metric (S) suggested by Schott (1995) is calculated with a relative distance measure between consecutive solutions in the obtained non-dominated set, as follows: v u jQ j u1 X St d d 2 A:1 jQ j i 1 i where di mink A Q 4k a i fSM m 1 jf m f m jg and d is the mean value of Qj the above distance measure d Sj i 1 di =jQ j. This metric measures the standard deviations of different di values. When the solutions are nearly spaced, the corresponding distance measure will be small. Thus, an algorithm nding a set of non-dominated solutions having smaller spacing (S) is better. A.2. Generational distance (GD) The generational distance (GD) as recommended by Veldhuizen (1999) evaluates an average distance of the solutions of Q from Pn, as follows: P Q j p 1=p j i 1 di A:2 GD jQ j for p 2, the parameter di is the Euclidean distance (in the objective space) between the solution i A Q and the nearest member of Pn: v u M u X i ni t di min f m f m 2 A:3 n
k A jP j m1 i k

improvement in f2. Thus, this metric will favour a set Q which has better converged solution set for the least-scaled objective function. To eliminate this difculty, the above metric can be evaluated by using normalized objective function values. References
Abido, M.A., Bakhashwain, J.M., 2005. Optimal VAR dispatch using a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 27 (1), 1320. Alsac, O., Stott, B., 1974. Optimal load ow with steady state security. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 93 (3), 745751. Bansilal, Thukaram, D., Parthasarathy, K., 1996. Optimal reactive power dispatch algorithm for voltage stability improvement. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 18 (7), 461468. Corsi, S., 2010. Wide area voltage protection. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 4 (10), 11641179. Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., 2009a. Seeker optimization algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24 (3), 12181231. Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., 2009b. Reactive power dispatch considering voltage stability with seekers optimization algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 79, 14621471. Deb, K., 2001. Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester, UK. Deb, K., Agarwal, R.B., 1995. Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst. 9, 115148. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2), 182197. Dhillon, J.S., Parti, S.C., Kothari, D.P., 1993. Stochastic economic emission load dispatch. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 26, 179186. Jeyadevi, S., Baskar, S., Babulal, C.K., Iruthayarajan, M.W., 2011. Solving multiobjective optimal reactive power dispatch using modied NSGA-II. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33, 219228. Kamalasadan, S., Thukaram, D., Srivastava, A.K., 2009. A new intelligent algorithm for online voltage stability assessment and monitoring. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 31, 100110. Kessel, P., Glavitsch, H., 1986. Estimating the voltage stability of power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1, 346354. Lai, L.L., Ma, J.T., Yokoyama, R., Zhao, M., 1997. Improved genetic algorithms for optimal power ow under both normal and contingent operating states. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 19 (5), 287292. Montoya, F.G., Banos, R., Gil, C., Espin, A., Alcayde, A., Gomez, J., 2010. Minimization of voltage deviation and power losses in power networks using Pareto optimization methods. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 23, 603695. Reliability Test System Task Force, 1999. The IEEE reliability test system1996. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (3), 10101020. Saraswat, A., Saini, A., 2011. Optimal reactive power dispatch by an improved real coded genetic algorithm with PCA mutation. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Intelligence Systems (IET SEISCON 2011), India, vol. 2 (56), pp. 310315. Schott, J.R., 1995. Fault Tolerant Design Using Single and Multi-criteria Genetic Algorithms. Masters Thesis. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA. Van Cutsem, T., 1991. A method to compute reactive power margins with respect to voltage collapse. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 6, 145156. Veldhuizen, D.V., 1999. Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Classications, Analyses and New Innovations. Ph.D. Thesis. Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, OH. Vyjayanthi, C., Thukaram, D., 2011. Evaluation and improvement of generators reactive power margins in interconnected power systems. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 5 (4), 504518. Zhang, W., Liu, Y., 2008. Multi-objective reactive power and voltage control based on fuzzy optimization strategy and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 30, 525532. Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Cao, Y.J., 2005. A multi-agent based particle swarm optimization approach for optimal reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (2), 10701078. Zitzler, E., Deb, K., Thiele, L., 2000. Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evol. Comput. 8 (2), 173195. Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., 1998. Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithmsa comparative case study. In: Eiben, A.E., Back, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from NaturePPSN. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 292301.

where f m is the mth objective function of the kth member of Pn. Intuitively, an algorithm having a small value of GD is better. A.3. Hypervolume (HV) The hypervolume metric (HV) provides a measure of convergence as well as diversity in a combined sense. It calculates the volume (in the objective space) covered by members of Q for problems where all objectives are to be minimized (Veldhuizen, 1999; Zitzler and Thiele, 1998). Mathematically, for each solution i A Q , a hypercube vi is constructed with reference point W and the solution i as the diagonal corners of the hypercube. The reference point can simply be the found by constructing a vector of worst objective function values. Thereafter, a union of all hypervolume (HV) is calculated as follows: ! jQ j [ HV volume vi A:4
i1

ni

Obviously, an algorithm with large value of HV is desirable. This metric is free from arbitrary scaling of objectives. For example, if the rst objective function takes values an order of magnitude more than of the second objective, a unit improvement in f1 would reduce HV much more than that a unit