Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Efficient Multi-Objective Meta-Heuristic Method For Distribution Network Expansion Planning
An Efficient Multi-Objective Meta-Heuristic Method For Distribution Network Expansion Planning
An Efficient Multi-Objective Meta-Heuristic Method For Distribution Network Expansion Planning
=
=
n
n
i
i base
V V f
1
2
3
..............................................................
(3)
Constraints:
( ) z k y =
..............................................................................
(4)
M
i i
m
i
V V V
.....................................................................
(5)
M
j j
Ps Ps
.........................................................................
(6)
ij ij
T P
..............................................................................
(7)
where
f1, f2, f3: cost function to be optimized
n
f
: number of feeder candidates
cfi: installation cost of feeder i
x
fi
: variable denoting whether feeder i is installed or not,
( )
( )
=
installed not
installed
x
fi
0
1
n
s
: number of distribution substation candidates
csj: installation cost of distribution substation j
xsj: variable denoting whether distribution substation j is installed or not
n
d
: number of DG units
c
dk
: installation cost of DG unit k
xdk: variable denoting whether DG unit k is installed or not
P
loss
: network active power loss
n
n
: number of nodes
Vbase: reference voltage
V
i
: voltage magnitude at Node i
y: nodal specified value of power flow calculation
k(): power flow equation
z: power flow solution
Vi
m
(Vi
M
): lower (upper) bound of nodal voltage magnitude at Node i
Ps
j
: capacity of substation j
Ps
j
M
: upper bound of Ps
j
|Pij|: absolute value of active line flow between Nodes i and j
T
ij
: limitation of |P
ij
|
As the constraints, this paper considers the power flow
equation, the nodal voltage magnitude boundary, the radial
network condition, the limitation of line flows and the upper
bound of substation capacity. In this paper, three objective
functions (1)-(3) are optimized in a sense of multi-objective
optimization while satisfying the constraints.
III. CONTROLLED NSGA-II
In this section, Controlled NSGA-II of multi-objective
meta-heuristics is outlined. The method was based on NSGA-
II developed by Deb, et al. The difference between Controlled
NSGA-II and NSGA-II is that the reproduction of solution
candidate at the next generation is different in a way that the
diversity of solution candidates is higher in the Controlled
NSGA-II. Also, NSGA-II stems from NSGA developed by
Deb, et al. NSGA-II is different from NSGA in terms of the
fitness and the reproduction.
3.1 Strategies of NSGA-II
As the multi-objective optimization method, NSGA-II has
some functions to improve the solutions. It has the following
strategies:
1) fast non-dominated sort strategy
2) diversity strategy
3) elite strategy
The fast non-dominated sort is used to evaluate the solution
dominance and classify the solution into Front that
corresponds to the cluster with the same solution dominance.
In other words, it is just like a contour of the fitness. Fast non-
dominated sort is useful for evaluating, clusting, storing the
Pareto solutions. Fig.1 (a) shows the concept of Front in a
two-objective minimization problem, where two objective
functions f
1
and f
2
are considered and Front 1 is the closest to
the optimal surface that is the most important. The highest
fitness is assigned to Front 1. As shown in Fig. 1 (a), the
solution fitness decreases with the number of Fronts. The
crowding distance is introduced into NSGA-II as the fitness
measure to make a comparison of solutions in the same Front.
Fig. 1 (b) shows the concept of the crowding distance that
3
P
t
Q
t
P
t+1
F
1
F
3
F
2
R
t
Non-dominated
Sorting
Crowding Distance
Sorting
Genetic Operation
Fig. 2. Concept of Controlled NSGA-II
plays a role to store the diversity of the solution set. The
crowding distance is calculated by the sorted neighboring
solutions. Now, let us look at Solution j. The evaluation of
Solution j is obtained by Solutions j - 1 and j +1. As the
crowding distance of the solution becomes larger, the solution
becomes more important. The crowding distance allows the
user to evaluate the solution diversity and maintain the
diversity of the solutions. The crowding distance is a non-
parametric useful technique. The algorithm of NSGA-II may
be described as follows: First, the integrated set of the parents
and the offspring is created. The top-ranking solution set at
the next generation is stored after classifying the solution set
with the fast non-dominated sort. The constant numbers of the
solutions are stored at each generation. As a result, the
solutions with small crowding distance are exceeded form the
solution set to keep the constant number of solutions in a case
where the size of the solution set exceeds a certain value. The
procedure processes a certain size of solutions. The solution
set at the next generation is created by applying the genetic
operators to the solutions in the integrated sets.
3.2 Controlled NSGA-II
Controlled NSGA-II is the extension of NSGA-II in a way
that the reproductions of the next generation solution
candidates are considered. It overcomes the drawback that
NSGA-II does not appropriately improve the solution
candidates. Namely, Controlled NSGA-II gives better solution
candidates by introducing the diversity into solution search in
NSGA-II. The number of population as each Front stored at
the next generation may be written as
1
=
i i
rn n
where
n
i
: the number of population allowed at Front i
r : decreasing rate (r <1)
Fig. 2 shows the concept of Controlled NSGA-II where it
should be noted that Controlled NSGA-II considers all the
offspring although NSGA-II maintains a part of better
offspring. The solutions are preserved in Front in creating the
next generation solution set from the integrated solution set.
The priority of storing the solutions in Front is determined by
the crowding distance. Although the number of stored
solutions at the lower-ranked Front decreases exponentially, a
few numbers of them is stored.
IV. SPEA2
4.1 Strategies of SPEA2
This section describes SPEA2 that is one of multi-objective
meta-heuristic methods. SPEA2 is the modified method of
SPEA that makes use of the archive and a set of the evaluated
solutions. In order to evaluate better solutions, SPEA2 has the
following strategies:
1) The fitness is determined to include the priority of the
Pareto solutions.
2) The environment selection is carried out to maintain the
non-dominated solutions and the diversity of the
solution candidates.
The calculation of the fitness for SPEA2 considers both
dominating and dominated solutions. Suppose a set of
solutions P
t
and archive Q
t
. Let us consider individual i in P
t
and Q
t
. The strength value means the number of individuals
that are dominated by individual i. As an index, the strength
value S(i) is defined as
( ) { } j i Q P j | j i S
t t
f + =
................................................
(8)
where
| |: cardinality of a set
+: sumof sets
f : Pareto dependency
Based on S(i), raw fitness R(i) may be written as
( ) ( )
+
=
i j , Q P j
t t
j S i R
f
..................................................................
(9)
Fig. 3 (a) shows that S(i) for individual i is equal to 4. The
fitness for individual i results in the sum of S(i). To
distinguish between the individuals with the same fitness,
density information is employed. It is evaluated by the
distance of the k-th nearest individual. Specifically, the
distance function may be written as
( )
2
1
+
=
k
i
i D
...................................................................
(10)
where
k
i
: distance between individual i and k-th nearest individual
Eventually, the fitness of individual i may be written as
( ) ( ) ( ) i D i R i F + =
...............................................................
(11)
The diversity solution is calculated by the additional
information. Thus, SPEA2 realizes the dominance of Pareto
solutions and the diversity of them.
f1
f2
dominated space
dominating space
i
(a)
f1
f2
i
j
k
j
k
i
<
compare with solution i and j
delete solution i
then
(b)
Fig. 3 Strategies concept of SPEA2
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68 69
400
600
700
70
71
72
74
75
77
79
80
84
200
100
300
500
73
78
81
82
83
76
: Installed substation
: Substation candidate
: DG candidate
: Load bus
: Installed feeder
: Feeder candidate
Fig. 5. 69-node distribution system
Q
t
Pt
non-dominated
solution set
dominated
solution set
Qt +1 Q
t
P
t
non-dominated
solution set
dominated
solution set
Q
t +1
truncation method
combine
combine
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Concept of next generation selection.
4.2 Algorithm of SPEA2
The algorithm of SPEA2 may be summarized as follows:
Step 1: Set the initial conditions(P
0
, Q
0
, t =0)
Step 2: Calculate the fitness for P
t
and Q
t
Step 3: Copy all the Pareto solutions in P
t
and Q
t
to Q
t+1
.If
the size of Q
t+1
is over or under archive size N
Q
,
make the size of Q
t+1
N
Q
Step 4: Stop if the termination conditions are satisfied.
Otherwise, go to Step 5
Step 5: Carry out the binary tournament strategy to create
the mating pool with Q
t+1
Step 6: Apply the crossover and the mutation to the mating
pool and construct the next generation solution set
P
t+1
Step 7: Update t =t +1 and return to Step 2
Thus, the raw fitness allows the algorithm to judge which
solution is better and the additional density information helps
to judge the solution diversity. Also, SPEA2 uses the archive
truncation method to reduce the number of the Pareto
solutions to a constant number. The method is based on the
density information used in calculating the fitness of the
individual. Fig. 3 (b) gives the concept of the truncation
method, where individuals i and j are selected in the archive.
A comparison is made between the k-th neighbor individuals
to individuals i and j. The individual with smaller distance is
excluded to. The process is repeated until the number of
individuals in the archive reaches a certain number. That
constructs the solution set with solutions uniformly scattered.
Fig. 4 shows the concept of the next generation selection,
where Figs. 4 (a) and (b) give cases with smaller and larger
size than the constant archive size. Solution search is carried
out to construct the next generation set by applying genetic
operations to the archive.
V. SIMULATION
5.1 Simulation Conditions
The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated
in a sample system. A comparison is made between the
proposed method and other methods such as NSGA-II and
Controlled NSGA-II. The following conditions are employed:
1) The Proposed method is applied to the 69-node
distribution network with 7 distribution substation
candidates, 15 DG unit candidates and 115 new feeder
candidates. The candidates of substations (Nodes 100,
200,, 700), distributed generators (Nodes 70, 71,,84)
and new feeders as well as the load value are determined
in advance.
2) The installation cost of substations and distributed
generators are set to be 350 and 50, respectively. The cost
of feeders, the resistances and the reactance are
proportional to the length of feeders. It is assumed that the
candidates of the substations and the distributed
generators have one and two neighboring nodes to be
connected, respectively. Also, a distributed generator has
200kW output with power factor 0.75. The feeder
candidates are expressed in binary number. The substation
and the distributed generators are also represented in
binary number. The number of combinations to be solved
results in 5.14 10
61
.
5
f1
f2
: Search solution
: Preto optimal
solution
Fig. 6 Concept of D1R
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
f
2
f
1
f
3
f
2
Fig. 7. Simulation result for SPEA2
0 . 0 0 5 8 3
0 . 0 0 2 7 3
0 . 0 0 5 5 2
0 . 0 0 2 3 5
0 . 0 0 5 2
0 . 0 0 2 0 5
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
D
1
R
N S G A - I I C o n t r o l l e d S P E A 2
100
200
Fig. 8. D1R for each method
333
607
458
822
332
659
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
i
m
e
[
s
]
NSGA-I I Contr ol l ed SPEA2
100
200
Fig. 9 Computational time for each method
3) As the multi-objective functions, this paper minimized
network loss, the installation cost of new equipments and
the voltage deviation from the specified voltage. A
comparison between the proposed and the conventional
methods such as Controlled NSGA-II and NSGA-II is
made to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
method. The solution set consists of 100 and 200
solutions. The parameters are determined through the
preliminarily simulation.
4) To evaluate the quality of the solutions for multi-objective
optimization, this paper makes use of D1R that measures
the quality and the good spread of population in multi-
objective optimization. Suppose solution set x(p
1
), x(p
2
),...,
x(p
np
) that is closest to the Pareto solution set where x(p
i
)
means the solution closest to the Pareto solution p
i
. D1R
of x for the Pareto solution set p may be written as
{ }{ } ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
p
i i
n
i
n
p x f p f
p , x R D
p
=
=1
1
.............................
(12)
where
|| ||: Euclidean norm
f : normalized cost function
np: number of Pareto solutions
Fig. 6 shows the concept of D1R. It should be noted that D1R
becomes smaller as the evaluated solutions approach the
Pareto one and the solutions are uniformly distributed. The
evaluation of D1R needs the Pareto solution set in advance.
However, it is hard to evaluate all the Pareto solutions in the
multi-objective problem. Thus, Evolutionary Algorithm (EA)
with the large solution set is used to find out the Pareto
solutions with sufficient time. In this paper, SPEA2 is
employed as EA. In the same way, this paper defines the
Pareto solutions with EA.
5.2 Simulation Results
Fig. 7 shows the simulation results for SPEA2 for 100
individuals. The use of multi-objective meta-heuristics allows
the user to understand the trade-off relationship of the cost
functions. It can be observed that the Pareto solutions create
the curve near the boundary although the Pareto solutions for
three cost functions construct the surface. Also, the
intermediate areas create the surface to some extent. That is
because the cost functions have the common independent
relationship between the variables and the intermediate areas
have a variety of network configurations. According to the use
of the relationship, the network planners are allowed to select
the network configuration that considers the trade-off.
Fig. 8 shows D1R for each method for 100 and 200
individuals. SPEA2 reduced D1R by 10.8% and 6.8% for
NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II, respectively in case of 100
individuals. SPEA2 was more effective in case of 200
individuals. It succeeded in reducing D1R by 25.1% and
13.8% for NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II, respectively.
That is because NSGA-II has a drawback in evaluating the
crowding distance that corresponds to the density of the
individuals. It gives errors on D1R since the individual to be
evaluated is not used in calculating crowding distance. In
addition, it often encounters a case where the solution set is
not improved for lack of the solution diversity in search
6
process. Since Controlled NSGA-II introduces the strategy
into NSGA-II to escape from the fa1ilure in solution set
improvement, it gives better results than NSGA-II. However,
it provides errors on D1R due to the use of the same index.
SPEA2 is different from NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II in
a way of calculating the density of solutions. That brings
about more accurate results.
Fig. 9 shows computational time for 100 and 200
individuals, respectively. It can be seen that the order of
superiority for case of 100 individuals has the same trend as
that for case of 200 ones. Namely, NSGA-II is faster than
Controlled NSGA-II and SPEA2. SPEA2 is not so fast as
NSGA-II and faster than Controlled NSGA-II. SPEA2
reduced computational time of Controlled NSGA-II by 27.5%
and 19.1% for 100 and 200 individuals, respectively. Thus, it
can be seen that SPEA2 was faster than Controlled NSGA-II
that is superior to NSGA-II in terms of solution quality. The
simulation results have shown that SPEA2 is superior to
NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II in terms of solution
accuracy and computational time.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has proposed an efficient multi-objective meta-
heuristic method for distribution network expansion planning.
The optimal configuration of the feeders, the substations and
DG units were determined by the multi-objective optimization.
The proposed method made use of SPEA2 that was effective
for evaluating the Pareto solution set in the multi-objective
optimization problem. The method allows the planners to
understand the trade-off relationship of the cost functions. The
proposed method was tested in the 69-node distribution
network with 14 DG units. It was compared with NSGA-II
and Controlled NSGA-II of the multi-objective optimization
technique. SPEA2 succeeded in reducing the D1R of the
evaluation index by 10.8% and 6.8% for NSGA-II and
Controlled NSGA-II, respectively. The simulation results have
shown that SPEA2 outperformed other methods in terms of
solution quality and computational time.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Mori and Y. Iimura, An Improved Tabu Search Approach to
Distribution Network Expansion Planning Under New Environment,
Proc. of IEEE PES POWERCON 2004, Singapore, Oct. 2004.
[2] H. Mori and Y. Yamada, Two-Layered Neighborhood Tabu Search for
Distribution Network Expansion Planning, Proc. of IEEE ISCAS2006,
pp. 3706-3709, Island of Kos, Greece, May 2006.
[3] K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh, M. Kitagawa, and K. Yamanaka, New
Approximate Optimization Method for Distribution SystemPlanning,
IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 126-132 Feb. 1990.
[4] S. Bhowmik, S. K. Goswami and P. K. Bhattachrjee, A New
Distribution System Planning Through Reliability Evaluation
Technique, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 169-
179, J une 2000.
[5] H. Kuwabara and K. Nara, Multi-year and Multi-state Distribution
SystemExpansion Planning by Multi-state Branch Exchange, IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 12, pp. 457-463, J an. 1997.
[6] K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh. M. Kitagawa and K. Yamanaka, Algorithm
for Expansion Planning in Distribution Systems Taking Faults into
Consideration, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 324-330,
Feb. 1994.
[7] J . T. Boardman and C. C. Meckiff, A Branch and Bound Formulation to
an Electricity Distribution Planning Problems, IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., Vol. PAS-104, pp. 2112-2118, Aug. 1985.
[8] S. J onavithula and R. Billinton, MinimumCost Analysis of Feeder
Routing in Distribution SystemPlanning, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 1935-1940, Oct.1996.
[9] V. Miranda, J . V. Ranito, and L. M. Proenca, Genetic Algorithmin
Optimal Multistage Distribution Network Planning, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1927-1933 Nov. 1994.
[10] V. Miranda and L. M. Proenca, A General Methodology for
Distribution Planning under Uncertainty, including Genetic Algorithms
and Fuzzy Models on a Multi-criteria Environment, in IEEE/KTH
StockholmPower Tech Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 833-837, J une
1995.
[11] K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh, M. Kitagawa, and K. Yamanaka, A New
Feeder Route Determination Algorithmby Dijkstra Method and Tabu
Search, Proc. of Intelligent System Application to Power System
(ISAP97), pp. 448-452, Seoul, Korea, J uly 1996.
[12] A. Goicoechea, D. R. Hansen and L. Duckstein, Multi-objective
Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications, New
York: Wiley, 1982.
[13] C. M. Fonseca and P. J . Fleming, Genetic Algorithms for
Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion, and
Generalization, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416-423, 1993.
[14] N. Srinivas and K. Deb, Multiobjective Optimization Using
Nondiminated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms, Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 221-248, 1994.
[15] K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan, A Fast Elitist Non-
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithmfor Multi-objective Optimization:
NSGA-II, Proceeding of the Parallel ProblemSolving fromNature VI,
pp. 849-858, 2000.
[16] K. Deb and T. Goel, Controlled Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithmfor Better Convergence, Proceeding of the First International
Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, pp.42-50,
2001.
[17] E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A
Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach, IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 257-271,
1999.
[18] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele, SPEA2: Improving the
Performance of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm, Technical
Report 103, Computer Engineering and Communication Networks Lac
(TIK), Swis Federal institute of Technology (ETH ) Zurich, 2001.
[19] H. D. Chiang, A Decoupled Load Flow Method for Distribution Power
Networks : Algorithms, Analysis and Convergence Study, Electrical
Power Energy Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 130-138, J une 1991.
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Hiroyuki Mori was born in Tokyo, J apan on November, 1954. He received
the B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees all in Electrical Engineering fromWaseda
University, Tokyo, J apan in 1979, 1981, and 1985, respectively. From1984 to
1985 he was a Research Associate at Waseda University. In 1985 he joined
the faculty in Electrical Engineering at Meiji University, Kawasaki, J apan.
From1994 to 1995, he was a Visiting Associate Professor of School of
Electrical Engineering at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. He is
currently a Professor of Dept. of Electronics and Bioinformatics at Meiji
University. Since 2001, He has been the ISAP Board Director. His research
interests include voltage instability, power flows, state estimation, load
forecasting, systemidentification, fuzzy, meta-heuristics and artificial neural
networks. Dr. Mori is a member of AAAI, ACM, INNS, SIAM and IEE of
J apan.
Yoshinori Yamada was born in Tokyo, J apan on J anuary, 1984. He received
the B. Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering fromMeiji University, Kawasaki,
J apan in 2006. He is currently working for the M.Sc. degree. His research
interests are distribution systemanalysis and multi-objective meta-heuristics.
Mr. Yamada is a student member of IEEE and IEE of J apan.