188

CHAPTER 5
SIMULATION RESULTS & DISCUSSION
5.0

INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with testing of GSHDC algorithm for IEEE

test systems.

The standard IEEE 14, 30 and 57 systems are

considered

investigate

to

the

effectiveness

of

the

proposed

methodology. The test is carried with a 1.4-GHz Pentium-IV PC. The

GSHDC has been developed by the use of MATLAB version 7. The
simulation results are compared with other popular methodologies in
judicious way.
GSHDC Method is implemented for two Test cases:
Test-1: Suboptimal Solution obtained through IP method
Test-2: Suboptimal Solution obtained through PSO method
Suboptimal solution is obtained for two individual objectives and
one Multi-objective:
Objective-1: Minimum Fuel Cost
Objective-2: Minimum Power Loss
Using the OPF solutions obtained through objective-1 &2 as
parent chromosomes, population is generated for the multi-objective
OPF problem. This is referred as:
Objective-3: Multi-Objective
GSHDC is implemented for each Test case and each objective for
three case studies that is, three IEEE Test systems.
Case-1: IEEE 14-Bus System

189

Case-2: IEEE 30-Bus System

Case-3: IEEE 57-Bus System
In addition to above two tests, GSHDC is also implemented with
suboptimal solution obtained through modified penalty factor method
to test its effectiveness. This case is referred as Test-3.
Simulation Test results are presented as per the following tree
diagram shown in the Fig.5.1

OPF- Simulation Test Results

Test-3: OPF suboptimal Solution Using
modified penalty factor method
TEST-1
OPF suboptimal Solution Using IP Method

TEST-2
OPF suboptimal Solution Using PSO Method

Objective-1
GSHDC solution for
minimum power loss

Objective-2
GSHDC solution for
minimum fuel cost

Objective-1
GSHDC solution for
minimum power loss

Objective-2
GSHDC solution for
minimum fuel cost

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Objective-3 GSHDC-MOGA

Objective-3 GSHDC-MOGA

Multi-Objective solution for minimum

fuel cost & minimum power loss

Multi-Objective solution for minimum

fuel cost & minimum power loss

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Case-1: 14- Bus System

Case-2: 30- Bus System
Case-3: 57- Bus System

Fig: 5.1 Tree Diagram indicating various simulation test results

Tree diagram can be read as follows:
Example:
1) Test-1, Objective-1, Case-1 indicates the GSHDC results for IEEE
14-Bus System for minimum fuel cost using OPF suboptimal
solution based on IP Method.

190

2) Test-1, Objective-2, Case-3 indicates the GSHDC results for IEEE

57-Bus System for minimum power loss using OPF suboptimal
solution based on IP Method.
3) Test-2, Objective-3, Case-1 indicates the multi objective GSHDCMOGA results for IEEE 14-Bus System where the OPF for
minimum fuel cost and power loss using suboptimal solution
based on PSO Method.
5.1

OPF SIMULATION RESULTS - IEEE 14 BUS TEST SYSTEM

In this study, the standard IEEE 14-Bus 5 Generator test

system is considered to investigate effectiveness of the GSHDC

approach. The IEEE 14-bus system has 20 transmission lines. The
single line diagram is shown in Fig.5.2. The values of fuel cost
coefficients are given in Table 5.1. The total load demand of the
system is 259 MW and 5 -Generators should share load optimally.

Fig: 5.2 IEEE 14 Bus Test System [101]

191

Table 5.1: Generator Fuel Cost Coefficients

Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5

Generator
at bus #
1
2
3
6
8

i ($/h)

i ($/MWhr)

0
0
0
0
0

20
20
40
40
40

0.0430293
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.01

($/MWhr2)

Table 5.2: Generator Operating Limits

Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5

Generator
at bus #
1
2
3
6
8

PGiMn
(MW)
0
0
0
0
0

PGiMax
(MW)
332.4
140
100
100
100

Minimum or Maximum Generation

limits of Generators are presented
in Table 5.2.

Parameter values for GA are presented in Table 5.3

Table 5.3: Parameter values Genetic Algorithm
Population Size

100

Mutation Probability

0.01

No. of Generations

300

Crossover Probability

0.08

5.1.1 Test-1 Objective-1 case-1

Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Fuel Cost
For the IEEE 14 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using IP method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC Algorithm. Finally with the help of a
well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find the
optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective namely,
minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of generation,
generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU

192

execution time. Table 5.4 provides generation schedule, cost of

generation and CPU time for the minimum fuel cost objective.
Table 5.5 provides bus voltage magnitudes for the minimum fuel cost
objective. From Table 5.4, it can be seen both cost of generation and
CPU execution time in GSHDC method as compared IP method are
superior.
Table 5.4 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System
Test-1 Objective-1 Case-1 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)

PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by

IP Method
194.33
36.72
28.74

GSHDC-IP
Method
195.01
39.45
27.94

PG6(MW)

11.20

9.20

PG8 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

8.50

7.84

8081.53 $/h

8043.30 $/h

1.75 seconds

1.43 seconds

Parameter

Table 5.5 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System-Test-1 Objective1 Case-1 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by IP

Method
1.06
1.041
1.01
1.06
1.06
9.287

GSHDC-IP Method
1.06
1.045
1.016
1.07
1.09
9.2523

From Table 5.5, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP method.

193

5.1.2 Test-1 Objective-2 case-1

Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal solution
obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Power loss
For the IEEE 14 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using IP method. Taking this as
suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss in
the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help of
a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.6
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.7 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective.
Table 5.6 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System
Test-1 Objective-2 Case-1 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6(MW)
PG8 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

Suboptimal OPF solution by

IP Method
194.32
40.27
27.85
10.73
6.28

193.49
40.20
28.86
10.66
6.15

8082.77 $/h

8043.80 $/h

1.72 seconds

1.52 seconds

GSHDC-IP Method

From Table 5.6, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared IP method are
superior.

194

Table 5.7

OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-1

Objective-2 Case-1 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by

IP Method
1.06
1.045
1.01
1.07
1.09
9.2469

GSHDC-IP Method
1.06
1.047
1.010
1.072
1.09
9.1643

From Table 5.7, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP method.
Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods indicates
that there is no significant difference.
5.1.3 Test-1 Objective-3 case-1
Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual

high density clusters for

minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss,

Now, for the IEEE 14 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using IP method. Table 5.8 (a) provides member ship function values
of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the core points of each
of high density clusters.

195

Table 5.8 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-1
Sl.
No.

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

Minimum Fuel Cost

Total fuel
Member
Total fuel
cost for
ship
cost for
minimum
function
minimum
generation
value
power loss
cost
f1
1
f2
8043.30
1.0
9.3706
8043.60
0.9852
9.3725
8043.80
0.9754
9.5041
8044.10
0.9607
9.2523
8044.40
0.9460
9.2737
8045.10
0.9117
9.3039
8046.35
0.8504
9.1900
8047.23
0.8073
9.2069
8055.43
0.4053
9.2469
8057.23
0.3171
9.1645
8063.70
0.0
9.1679
8.1591

f 1,max=8063.70

f 1,min = 8043.30

Minimum Power Loss

Member
ship
Decision
function
making
value
2
0.3931
0.3875
0.0
0.7414
0.6784
0.5895
0.9249
0.9010
0.7573
1.0
0.9899
7.363

f 2,max = 9.5041

D
0.08974
0.08843
0.06167
0.10965
0.10465
0.09671
0.11437
0.11005
0.07489
0.08485
0.06377

f 2,min = 9.1645

f 1,max - f 1,min = 20.40

f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.3396
Membership function Values: Membership function values for the items
in 2nd row are calculated as per the following.
1 = (8063.70- 8043.60)/ 20.40 = 0.9852
2 = (9.5041 - 9.3725)/ 0.3396 = 0.3875
1 + 2

= 8.1591 + 7.363=15.5221

D = (0.9852+ 0.3875) / (15.5221) = 0.08843

Multi-Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making
From the Table 5.8, it is observed the D has maximum value in
7th row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2 are taken as
the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives minimum fuel cost
and minimum power loss respectively.

196

The values of f1 and f2 are:

f1 - Minimum Fuel Cost:

8046.35 $/h.

f2 - Minimum Power Loss - 9.1900 MW.

Table 5.8 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation and
CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-IP OPF solution for
IEEE 14- Bus System.
Table 5.8 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-1
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6(MW)
PG8 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution
time

MOGA-IP OPF Result

195.49
40.70
29.29
11.22
5.83

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8

MOGA-IP OPF Result

1.06
1.023
1.02
1.072
1.09

Power loss
(MW)

9.1900

8046.35 $/h
1.83 seconds

5.1.4 Test-2 Objective-1 case-1

Testing of GSHDC-PSO Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Particle Swarm Optimization Method
For the IEEE 14 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using PSO method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC-PSO Algorithm. Finally with the help
of a well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find
the optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective
namely, minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of
generation, generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes
and CPU execution time. Table 5.9 provides generation schedule, cost

197

of generation and CPU time for the min. cost objective. Table 5.10
provides bus voltage magnitudes for the min. cost objective.
Table 5.9 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System
Test-2 Objective-1 Case-1 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)

PG1 (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by PSO

Method
195.45

GSHDC-PSO
Method
193.36

PG2 (MW)

36.93

40.86

PG3 (MW)
PG6(MW)
PG8 (MW)
Total Cost of Generation
CPU execution time

29.51
6.64
11.06
8079.40 $/h
6.00 seconds

25.51
7.99
10.67
8038.80 $/h
1.43 seconds

Parameter

From Table 5.9, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared PSO method are
superior.

From Table 5.10, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to PSO
method.
Table 5.10 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-1 Case-1 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter

Suboptimal OPF solution by PSO

Method

GSHDC-PSO
Method

VG1

1.06

1.06

VG2
VG3

1.042
1.012

1.045
1.018

VG6

1.05

1.09

VG8

1.062

1.09

Power loss (MW)

9.257

9.1995

5.1.5 Test-2 Objective-2 case-1

Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal solution
obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Power loss

198

For the IEEE 14 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using IP method. Taking this as
suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss in
the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help of
a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.11
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.12 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective. From Table 5.11, it
can be seen both cost of generation and CPU execution time in
GSHDC method as compared PSO method are superior.

Table 5.11 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System

Test-2 Objective-2 Case-1 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter

Suboptimal OPF solution by

PSO Method

GSHDC-PSO Method

PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6(MW)
PG8 (MW)

195.32
39.27
28.85
09.73
5.28

193.35
39.80
27.86
11.66
5.80

Total Cost of Generation

8072.77 $/h

8042.10 $/h

CPU execution time

6.72 seconds

2.41 seconds

199

Table 5.12 OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-2

Objective-2 Case-1(Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter

GSHDC-PSO Method

VG1

Suboptimal OPF solution by

PSO Method
1.06

VG2

1.05

1.047

VG3

1.02

1.010

VG6
VG8
Power loss (MW)

1.065
1.09
9.2567

1.072
1.09
9.1587

1.06

From Table 5.12, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to PSO
method. Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods
indicates that there is no significant difference.
5.1.6 Test-2 Objective-3 case-1
Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual high density clusters for
minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss.
Now, for the IEEE 14 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using PSO method. Table 5.13 (a) provides member ship function
values of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the core points of
each of high density clusters.

200

Table 5.13 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-1
Minimum Fuel Cost
Sl.
No.

Total fuel cost

for minimum
generation cost

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

f1
8038.80
8039.60
8041.80
8042.10
8042.40
8043.10
8044.35
8046.23
8048.13
8053.42
8059.70

f 1,max=8059.70

Minimum Power Loss

Member
ship
function
value
1
1.0
0.9282
0.8564
0.8421
0.8277
0.7942
0.7344
0.6445
0.5536
0.3004
0.0
7.4815

f 1,min = 8038.80

f 1,max - f 1,min = 20.90

Total
Power loss
f2
9.3506
9.3625
9.4051
9.2423
9.2747
9.3139
9.1800
9.1881
9.1981
9.1587
9.1609

Member
ship
function
value
2
0.2212
0.1729
0.0
0.6607
0.5292
0.3701
0.9131
0.8807
0.8044
1.0
0.9910
6.9308

f 2,max = 9.4051

Decision
making
D
0.08472
0.0764
0.059418
0.093049
0.08518
0.075918
0.114307
0.10582
0.09422
0.08987
0.06268

f 2,min = 9.1587

f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.2464

Membership function Values: Membership function values for 2nd row

are calculated as per the following.
1 = (8059.70- 8039.60)/ 20.90 = 0.9282
2 = (9.4051- 9.3625)/ 0.2464= 0.1729
D = (0.9282+ 0.1729) / (7.4815+ 6.9308) = 0.0764
Multi-Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making
From the Table 5.13, it is observed the D has maximum value
in 7th row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2 are taken
as the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives minimum fuel
cost and minimum power loss respectively.
The values of f1 and f2 are:
f1 - Minimum Fuel Cost: 8044.35 $/h.
f2 - Minimum Power Loss - 9.1800 MW.

201

Table 5.13 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 14-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-1
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6(MW)
PG8 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution
time

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
194.49
41.70
29.89
12.00
5.12

VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
1.06
1.043
1.015
1.042
1.012

Power loss (MW)

9.1800

Parameter

8044.35 $/h
1.92 seconds

Table 5.13 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation

and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-PSO OPF
solution for IEEE 14- Bus System. MOGA-PSO results when compared
to MOGA-IP results, it can be seen OPF results are better through
former method.
5.2

OPF SIMULATION RESULTS - IEEE 30 BUS TEST SYSTEM

In this study, the standard IEEE 30-Bus 6 Generator test

system is considered to investigate effectiveness of the GSHDC

approach. The IEEE 30-bus system has 41 transmission lines. The
single line diagram is shown in Fig.5.2. The total load demand of the
system is 283.40 MW and 6 -Generators should share load optimally.
The values of fuel cost coefficients are given in Table 5.14. Minimum
or Maximum Generation limits of Generators are presented in
Table 5.15. The parameters values for GA are parented in Table: 5.16

202

Fig 5.3 IEEE 30-Bus Test System [101]

Table 5.14: Generator Fuel Cost Coefficients

Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5
6

Generator at
bus #
1
2
5
8
11
13

($/h)

0
0
0
0
0
0

($/MWhr)

2.0
1.75
1.0
3.25
3.0
3.0

($/MWhr2)

0.02
0.0175
0.0625
0.0083
0.025
0.025

Table 5.15: Generator Operating Limits

Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5
6

Generator at
bus #
1
2
5
8
11
13

PGiMn (MW)

PGiMax(MW)

50
20
15
10
10
12

200
80
50
35
30
40

Table 5.16: Parameter values Genetic Algorithm

Population Size
No. of Generations

100
300

Mutation Probability
Crossover Probability

0.01
0.08

203

5.2.1 Test-1 Objective-1 case-2

Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Fuel Cost.
For the IEEE 30 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using IP method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC Algorithm. Finally with the help of a
well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find the
optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective namely,
minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of generation,
generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU
execution time. Table 5.17 provides generation schedule, cost of
generation and CPU time for the min. cost objective. Table 5.18
provides bus voltage magnitudes for the min. cost objective.
Table 5.17 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System
Test-1 Objective-1 Case-2 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
PG1 (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by

IP Method
175.76

GSHDC-IP
Method
175.42

PG2 (MW)

48.81

48.85

PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)
Total Cost of Generation
CPU execution time

21.54
24.71
12.35
12
810.61 $/h
1.91 seconds

21.71
23.68
12.71
11.62
806.7008
1.70 seconds

Parameter

Table 5.18 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-1

Objective-1 Case-2 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG5
VG8
VG11
VG13
power loss
(MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by IP Method

1.019
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

GSHDC-IP Method
1.05
1.041
1.013
1.07
1.09
1.02

11.43

10.5920

204

From Table 5.17, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared IP method are
superior. From Table 5.18, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at
generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP method.
5.2.2 Test-1 Objective-2 case-2
Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Power loss.
For the IEEE 30 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using IP method. Taking this as
suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss in
the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help of
a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.19
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.20 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective.

205

Table 5.19 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System

Test-1 Objective-2 Case-2 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

Suboptimal OPF solution by IP

Method
175.43
47.81

GSHDC-IP Method
175.44
48.86

25.54
25.71
12.56
12

23.10
23.67
11.56
11.32

812.00 $/h

806.8495

3.54 seconds

2.74

Table 5.20 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-1

Objective-2 Case-2 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG5
VG8
VG11
VG13
power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by

IP Method
1.012
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
10.830

GSHDC-IP Method
1.019
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
10.558

From Table 5.19, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared to IP method are
superior. From Table 5.20, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at
generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP method.
Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods indicates
that there is no significant difference.
5.2.3 Test-1 Objective-3 case-2
Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual
minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss,

high density clusters for

206

Now, for the IEEE 30 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using IP method. Table 5.21(a) provides member ship function values
of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the core points of each
of high density clusters.
f 1,max=806.8495

f 1,min =806.7008 f 2,max =10.7330 f 2,min = 10.5580

f 1,max - f 1,min = 0.1487

f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.1750

Membership function Values: Membership function values for 2nd row

are calculated as per the following.
1 = (806.8495- 806.7031)/ 0.1487 = 0.9845
2 = (10.7330- 10.7109)/ 0.1750= 0.1262
1 + 2 =7.4636+5.675 =13.1386
D = (0. 9845+0.12620)/( 13.1386) = 0.08453
Table 5.21 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-2
Minimum Fuel Cost

01
02
03

Total fuel cost for

minimum
generation
cost
f1
806.7008
806.7031
806.7073

04

Sl.
No.

Member ship
function
value

Minimum Power Loss

Total
Member ship
Power loss function value

Decision
making

1
1.0
0.9845
0.9562

f2
10.6934
10.7109
10.7330

2
0.2262
0.1262
0.0

D
0.093332
0.084537
0.072777

806.7135

0.9145

10.6296

0.5908

0.114570

05
06
07
08
09

806.7228
806.7289
806.7332
806.7555
806.7860

0.8520
0.8110
0.7821
0.6321
0.4270

10.6301
10.6571
10.6157
10.6226
10.6274

0.5880
0.4337
0.6702
0.6308
0.6034

0.109600
0.094736
0.110536
0.096121
0.076425

10
11

806.8340
806.8495

0.1042
0.0

10.5580
10.5920

1.0
0.8057

0.084044
0.061323

1 =7.4636

2=5.675

207

Multi-Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making

From the Table 5.21, it is observed the D has maximum value
in 4th row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2 are taken
as the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives minimum fuel
cost and minimum power loss respectively.
The values of f1 and f2 are:
f1 - Minimum Fuel Cost:

806.7135 $/h.

f2 - Minimum Power Loss- 10.6296 MW.

Table 5.21 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation
and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-IP OPF solution
for IEEE 14- Bus System.
Table 5.21 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-2

PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)

MOGA-IP OPF
Result
176.43
48.81
25.54
23.71
11.56
12.00

Total Cost of Generation

806.7135

CPU execution time

3.1 sec

Parameter

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
Power loss
(MW)

MOGA-IP OPF
Result
1.019
1.020
1.003
1.023
1.011
1.000
10.6296

5.2.4 Test-2 Objective-1 case-2

For the IEEE 30 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using PSO method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC Algorithm. Finally with the help of a
well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find the
optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective namely,
minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of generation,

208

generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU

execution time. Table 5.22 provides generation schedule, cost of
generation and CPU time for the min. cost objective. Table 5.23
provides bus voltage magnitudes for the min. cost objective.
Table 5.22 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System
Test-2 Objective-1 Case-2 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)
Total Cost of Generation
CPU execution time

Suboptimal OPF solution by

PSO Method
167.76
47.77
22.54
23.71
14.56
12
807.961 $/h
3.57 seconds

GSHDC-PSO
Method
150.45
59.28
23.11
30.20
15.00
14.08
798.9925
2.54 sec

From Table 5.22, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared to PSO method are
superior.
Table 5.23 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-1 Case-2 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG5
VG8
VG11
VG13
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by PSO

Method
1.02
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.11

GSHDC-PSO
Method
1.016
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
8.7190

From Table 5.23, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to PSO
method.

209

5.2.5 Test-2 Objective-2 case-2

Testing of GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Power loss.
For the IEEE 30 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using PSO method. Taking this
as suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss
in the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help
of a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.24
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.25 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective.
Table 5.24 OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-2 Case-2 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

Suboptimal OPF solution by

PSO Method
174.20
47.90
24.44
26.12
13.27
12

GSHDC-PSO Method
150.18
58.80
23.17
31.62
14.76
13.53

807.56 $/h

799.1345

3.12 seconds

2.76 sec

From Table 5.24, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared PSO method are
superior.

210

Table 5.25

OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-2

Objective-2 Case-2 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude,

power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG5
VG8
VG11
VG13
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by

PSO Method
1.022
1.034
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.47

GSHDC-PSO Method
1.016
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
8.6699

From Table 5.25, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to PSO
method. Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods
indicates that there is no significant difference.
Table 5.26 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-2
Minimum Fuel Cost

Minimum Power Loss

01
02
03

Total fuel cost for

minimum
generation cost
f1
798.9925
798.9951
799.0021

Total
Member ship
Power
function value
loss
1
f2
1.0000
8.7190
0.9579
8.7223
0.8446
8.7240

04

799.0044

0.8074

05
06
07

799.0066
799.0076
799.0089

08

Member ship
function value

Decision
making

2
0.0924
0.0314
0.0000

D
0.10688
0.09679
0.08264

8.7184

0.1035

0.08912

0.7718
0.7556
0.7346

8.7185
8.7189
8.7090

0.1016
0.0942
0.2741

0.08545
0.08315
0.09869

799.0100

0.7168

8.7113

0.2347

0.09310

09

799.0138

0.6553

8.7175

0.1201

0.07587

10

799.0171

0.5970

8.6699

1.0000

0.15626

11

799.0543

0.0000

8.7063

0.3271

0.03200

Sl.
No.

1=7.841

2=2.3791

211

5.2.6 Test-2 Objective-3 case-2

Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual

high density clusters for

minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss,

Now, for the IEEE 30 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using PSO method.

Table 5.26 (a) provides member ship function

values of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the core points of
each of high density clusters.
f 1,max=799.0543

f 1,min = 798.9925

f 1,max - f 1,min = 0.0618

f 2,max = 8.7240

f 2,min = 8.6699

f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.0541

Membership function Values: Membership function values for 2nd row

are calculated as per the following.
1 = (799.0543- 798.9951)/ 0.0618

= 0.9579

2 = (8.7240- 8.7223)/ 0.0541 = 0.0314

1 + 2 =7.841+ 2.3791 =10.22
D = (0.9579+ 0.0314) / (10.22) = 0.09679
Multi -Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making
From the Table 5.26 (a) it is observed the D has maximum
value in 10th row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2
are taken as the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives
minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss respectively.
The values of f1 and f2 are:
f1 - Minimum Fuel Cost:

799.0171 $/h.

f2 - Minimum Power Loss - 8.6699 MW.

212

Table 5.26 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 30-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-2
Parameter

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
152.23
59.10
24.17
30.62
15.70
13.23
799.0171

PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG5 (MW)
PG8(MW)
PG11 (MW)
PG13 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

Parameter

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
1.016
1.001
1.020
1.010
1.010
1.000

VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
Power loss
(MW)

3.2 sec

8.6699

Table 5.26 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation

and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-PSO OPF
solution for IEEE 30- Bus System. MOGA-PSO results when compared
to MOGA-IP results, it can be seen OPF results are better through
former method.
5.3

SIMULATION RESULTS - IEEE 57 BUS TEST SYSTEM

In this study, the standard IEEE 57-Bus 7 Generator test

system is considered to investigate effectiveness of the GSHDC

approach. The IEEE 57-bus system has 80 transmission lines. The
single line diagram is shown in Fig. 5.4. The total load demand of the
system is 259MW and 7-Generators should share load optimally. The
values of fuel cost coefficients are given in Table 5.27. Generator
active power limits are presented in Table 5.28. Table 5.29 provides
Parameter values of Genetic Algorithm.
Table 5.27: Generator Fuel Cost Coefficients
Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Generator
at bus #
1
2
3
6
8
9
12

i ($/h)

i ($/MWhr)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

20
40
20
40
20
40
20

0.0775
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.0222
0.01
0.022

($/MWhr2)

213

Table 5.28: Generator Operating Limits

Sl.No

Generator at bus #

PGiMn (MW)

PGiMax(MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
2
3
6
8
9
12

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

577.88
100
140
100
350
100
410

Table 5.29: Parameter values Genetic Algorithm

No. of Generations

300

Crossover Probability

0.8

Population Size

100

Mutation Probability

0.01

5.3.1 Test-1 Objective-1 case-3

Testing of GSHDC-IP Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Fuel Cost.
For the IEEE 57 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using IP method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC-IP Algorithm. Finally with the help of
a well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find the
optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective namely,
minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of generation,
generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU
execution time. Table 5.30 provides generation schedule, cost of
generation and CPU time for the minimum cost objective.

214

Fig: 5.4 IEEE 57 Bus Test System [101]

215

Table 5.30 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System

Test-1 Objective-1 Case-3 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter

IP Method

GSHDC -IP Method

PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)
PG12 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

146.63
97.79
47.07
72.86
489.80
97.63
361.52

144.89
93.08
45.19
68.15
476.03
95.90
365.97

42,737.79 $/h

41,873.00 $/h

3.17 sec

2.89 sec

From Table 5.30, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared to IP method are
superior.
Table 5.31 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System
Test-1 Objective-1 Case-3 (Generator Bus Voltage
Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by IP Method

1.040
1.008
0.985
0.980
1.044
0.980
0.992
18.0692

GSHDC-IP Method
1.050
1.010
1.003
1.026
1.050
1.044
1.015
17.4038

From Table 5.31, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC-IP method. Also, the power
loss in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP
method.
5.3.2 Test-1 Objective-2 case-3
Testing of GSHDC-IP Algorithm for OPF Solution using suboptimal
solution obtained by Interior Point Method-Minimum Power loss

216

For the IEEE 57 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using IP method. Taking this as
suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss in
the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help of
a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.32
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.33 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective.
Table 5.32 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System
Test-1 Objective-2 Case-3 (Generation Schedule, cost,
CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)

IP Method
142.63
87.79
45.07

GSHDC-IP Method
144.78
92.83
45.29

PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)

72.86
459.80
97.63

68.11
457.30
95.62

PG12 (MW)
Total Cost of Generation

361.52
42,354.90 $/h

366.27
41,956 $/h

CPU execution time

3.23 sec

2.98 sec

From Table 5.32, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared to IP method are
superior.

217

Table 5.33 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System Test-1

Objective-2 Case-3 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude,
power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by IP

Method
1.009
1.008
1.003
1.026
1.044
1.044
0.992
17.116

GSHDC-IP
Method
1.04
1.01
0.985
0.980
1.005
0.980
1.015
16.998

From Table 5.33, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC-IP method. Also, the power
loss in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP
method. Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods
indicates that there is no significant difference.
5.3.3 Test-1 Objective-3 case-3
Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual

high density clusters for

minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss,

Now, for the IEEE 57 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using IP method. Table 5.34 provides weightage factors and member
ship function values of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the
core points of each of high density clusters.

218

Table 5.34 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-3
Minimum Fuel Cost
Sl.
No.

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

Minimum Power Loss

Total fuel cost

for minimum
generation cost

Member ship
function
value

Total
Power
loss

Membership
function value

f1
41,873.00
41,874.00
41,876.00
41,877.00
41,881.00
41,883.00
41,885.00
41,889.00
41,903.00
41,90400
41,907.00

1
1.0000
0.9705
0.9117
0.8823
0.7647
0.7058
0.6470
0.5294
0.1176
0.0882
0.0000
1=6.6172

f2
17.3512
17.3735
17.4038
17.2410
17.2827
17.29461
17.1231
17.1686
17.1871
16.9980
17.0183

2
0.12962
0.07466
0.00000
0.40118
0.29842
0.26909
0.69172
0.57959
0.53400
1.00000
0.94997
2=4.92006

Decision
making
D
0.097900
0.090589
0.079020
0.111246
0.092146
0.084499
0.116034
0.096122
0.056477
0.094320
0.082339

f 1,max=41,907.00 f 1,min = 41,873.00 f 2,max = 17.4038 f 2,min = 16.9980

f 1,max - f 1,min = 34.00

f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.4058

Membership function Values: Membership function values for 2nd row

are calculated as per the following.
1 = (41,907.00- 41,874.00)/ 34.00 = 0.9705
2 = (17.4038- 17.3735)/ 0.4058= 0.07466
D = (0.9705+ 0.07466) / (6.6172+ 4.92006) = 0.090589
Multi -Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making
From the Table 5.34, it is observed the D has maximum
value in 4th row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2 are
taken as the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives minimum
fuel cost and minimum power loss respectively.
The values of f1 and f2 are:
f1 - Minimum Fuel Cost:

41,877.00 $/h.

f2 - Minimum Power Loss- 17.2410 MW.

219

Table 5.34 (b) provi2des generation schedule, cost of generation

and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-IP OPF solution
for IEEE 57- Bus System.
Table 5.34 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System - Test-1
Objective-3 Case-3
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)
PG12 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation
CPU execution time

MOGA-IP OPF Result

145.00
93.25
46.45
69.25
461.34
96.62
367.85
41,877.00 $/h
3.02 sec

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
Power loss
(MW)

MOGA- IP OPF Result

1.04
1.005
1.001
1.001
1.004
1.0032
1.016
17.2410

5.3.4 Test-2 Objective-1 case-3

Testing

of

GSHDC-PSO Algorithm for OPF Solution using

suboptimal solution obtained by Particle Swarm Optimization Method

For the IEEE 57 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution is
obtained by using PSO method. Taking this as suboptimal solution, a
high density cluster for minimum fuel cost is formed in the vicinity of
suboptimal solution by GSHDC-PSO Algorithm. Finally with the help
of a well defined fitness function genetic search is carried out to find
the optimal solution. The results are furnished for the objective
namely, minimum cost. The test results include the total cost of
generation, generation schedule, generator bus voltage magnitudes
and CPU execution time. Table 5.35 provides generation schedule,
cost of generation and CPU time for the min. fuel cost objective. Table
5.36 provides bus voltage magnitudes for the min. fuel cost objective.

220

Table 5.35 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System

Test-2 Objective-1 Case-3 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)
PG12 (MW)
Total Cost of Generation
CPU execution time

PSO Method
145.43
95.56
46.12
69.78
479.80
96.63
363.52
42,145.79 $/h
3.45 sec

GSHDC-PSO Method
140.24
81.60
48.32
68.72
476.83
84.05
367.69
41,327.00 $/h
2.98 se

From Table 5.35, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC-PSO method as compared to PSO method
are superior.
Table 5.36 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System
Test-2 Objective-1 Case-3 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude,
power loss)
Suboptimal OPF solution
by PSO Method
1.002
1.009
0.995
0.995
1.046
0.980
1.000
17.956

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
Power loss (MW)

GSHDC-PSO Method
1.050
1.015
1.025
1.030
1.050
1.050
1.030
16.4471

From Table 5.36, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC method. Also, the power loss
in transmission system is found to be less as compared to IP method.
5.3.5 Test-2 Objective-2 case-3
Testing

of

GSHDC-PSO Algorithm for OPF Solution using

suboptimal solution obtained by Particle Swarm Optimization Method Minimum Power loss.

221

For the IEEE 57 Bus Test system initially, an OPF solution for
minimum power loss is obtained by using PSO method. Taking this
as suboptimal solution, a high density cluster for minimum power loss
in the vicinity of suboptimal solution is formed. Finally with the help
of a well defined fitness function for minimum power loss, a genetic
search is carried out to find the optimal solution. The results are
furnished for the objective namely, minimum power loss. The test
results include the total cost of generation, generation schedule,
generator bus voltage magnitudes and CPU execution time. Table 5.37
provides generation schedule, cost of generation and CPU time for the
minimum power loss objective. Table 5.38 provides bus voltage
magnitudes for the minimum power loss objective.
Table 5.37 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System Test-2
Objective-2 Case-3 (Generation Schedule, cost, CPU time)
Parameter

PSO Method

PG1 (MW)

140.43

GSHDC-PSO
Method
140.24

PG2 (MW)

85.55

81.60

PG3 (MW)
PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)
PG12 (MW)

47.12
70.70
460.80
97.65
360.77

48.32
68.72
476.83
84.05
367.69

Total Cost of Generation

42,244.79 $/h

41,346.00 $/h

CPU execution time

3.4 sec

3.02 sec

From Table 5.37, it can be seen both cost of generation and CPU
execution time in GSHDC method as compared to PSO method are
superior.

222

Table 5.38 OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System Test-2

Objective-2 Case-3 (Generator Bus Voltage Magnitude, power loss)
Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
Power loss (MW)

Suboptimal OPF solution by PSO

Method
1.009
1.008
1.003
1.026
1.044
1.044
0.992
17.0692

GSHDC-PSO
Method
1.009
1.008
1.003
1.026
1.044
1.044
0.992
16.0692

From Table 5.38, it can be seen bus voltage magnitudes at

generator buses are improved in GSHDC-PSO method. Also, the power
loss in transmission system is found to be less as compared to PSO
method. Comparison of Bus voltage magnitudes in both the methods
indicates that there is no significant difference.

5.3.6 Test-2 Objective-3 case-3

Testing of MOGA-GSHDC Algorithm for OPF Solution, using two
high density core points of two individual high density clusters for
minimum fuel cost and minimum Power loss.
Now, for the IEEE 57 Bus Test system, a multi objective OPF
solution is obtained using core points available in two high density
clusters that is, for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss by
using PSO method.

Table 5.39 (a) provides member ship function

values of the non-dominant OPF solutions which are the core points of
each of high density clusters.

223

Table 5.39 (a) OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-3
Minimum Fuel Cost
Sl.
No.

Total fuel cost Member ship

for minimum
function
generation cost
value

Total
Power
loss

Member ship
function
value.

Decision
making

f2

1.0
0.9545
0.8636
0.8181
0.6363
0.5000
0.4090
0.3181
0.1363
0.0909
0.0
1=5.7268

16.5312
16.5575
16.6601
16.5010
16.5027
16.5261
16.4471
16.2431
16.2886
16.0692
16.1183

0.21814
0.17363
0.0
0.26925
0.26637
0.22677
0.36046
0.6041
0.6287
1.0
0.7057
2=4.4531

0.11966
0.11081
0.08483
0.10681
0.08671
0.07139
0.07558
0.09059
0.07514
0.10716
0.06932

f1
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

Minimum Power Loss

41,327.00
41,328.00
41,330.00
41,331.00
41,335.00
41,338.00
41,340.00
41,342.00
41,346.00
41,347.00
41,349.00

f 1,max=41,349.00 f 1,min = 41,327.00 f 2,max = 16.6601 f 2,min = 16.0692

f 1,max - f 1,min = 22.00
f 2,max - f 2,min = 0.5909
Membership function Values: Membership function values for 2nd row
are calculated as per the following.
1 = (41,349.00- 41,328.00)/ 22.00 = 0.9545
2 = (16.6601- 16.0692)/ 0.5909= 0.17363
D = (0.9545+ 0.17363) / (5.7268+ 4.4531) = 0.11081
Multi -Objective OPF Solution-Decision Making
From the Table 5.39(a), it is observed the D has maximum
value in 1st row. Accordingly the corresponding values of f1 and f2 are
taken as the multi objective OPF solution for the objectives minimum
fuel cost and minimum power loss respectively.
The values of f1 and f2 are:
f1 -Minimum Fuel Cost:

41,327.00 $/h.

f2 - Minimum Power Loss - 16.5312 MW.

224

Table 5.39 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation

and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-PSO OPF
solution for IEEE 57 Bus System.
Table 5.39 (b) OPF Solution for IEEE 57-Bus System - Test-2
Objective-3 Case-3
Parameter
PG1 (MW)
PG2 (MW)
PG3 (MW)
PG6 (MW)
PG8 (MW)
PG9 (MW)
PG12 (MW)
Total Cost of
Generation

CPU execution time

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
141.43
87.55
47.12
69.43
462.85
98.45
362.65
41,327.00

4.2 sec

Parameter
VG1
VG2
VG3
VG6
VG8
VG9
VG12
Power loss
(MW)

MOGA-PSO OPF
Result
1.009
1.009
1.004
1.028
1.044
1.044
0.992
16.5312

Table 5.39 (b) provides generation schedule, cost of generation

and CPU time, bus voltage magnitudes for the MOGA-PSO OPF
solution for IEEE 30- Bus System. MOGA-PSO results when compared
to MOGA-IP results, it can be seen OPF results are better through
former method.
5.4

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
GSHDC Method is implemented for two Test cases:

Test-1: Suboptimal Solution obtained through IP method

Test-2: Suboptimal Solution obtained through PSO method
Suboptimal solution is obtained for two individual objectives
and Multi-objective:
Objective-1: Minimum Fuel Cost
Objective-2: Minimum Power Loss
Objective-3: Multi-Objective

225

GSHDC is implemented for each Test case and each objective for
three case studies that is, three IEEE Test systems.
Case-1: IEEE 14-Bus System
Case-2: IEEE 30-Bus System
Case-3: IEEE 57-Bus System
Simulation results for all the Test cases, Objectives as well as
for different case studies is furnished in earlier sections. This section
presents summary of all results obtained.
Table 5.40 presents summary of GSHDC results for the case 14
bus system.
Table 5.40: Summary of Results Case-1: IEEE 14 - Bus System
Parameter
Fuel Cost
($/h)
Objective-1
Power Loss
(MW)
Objective-2

IP
Method

GSHDCIP
Method

PSO
Method

GSHDCPSO
Method

MOGAGSHDC
(IP Based)

MOGAGSHDC
(PSO Based)

8081.53

8043.30

8079.40

8038.80

8046.35

8044.35

9.2469

9.1643

9.2567

9.1587

9.190

9.180

Table 5.41 presents summary of GSHDC results for the case 30

bus system.
Table 5.41 Summary of ResultsCase-2:

Parameter
Fuel Cost
($/h)
Objective-1
Power Loss
(MW)
Objective-2

IEEE 30 - Bus System

MOGAGSHDC
(IP Based)

MOGAGSHDC
(PSO Based)

807.961 798.9925

806.7135

799.0171

10.47

10.6296

8.6699

IP
Method

GSHDC-IP
Method

PSO
Method

810.61

806.7008

10.830

10.558

GSHDCPSO
Method

8.6699

226

Table 5.42 presents summary of GSHDC results for the case 57

bus system.
Table 5.42 Summary of Results Case-3: 57 - Bus System
Parameter

Fuel Cost
($/h)
Power
Loss (MW)

IP
Method

GSHDCIP Method

42,739.79 41,873.00
17.116

16.998

PSO
Method

GSHDCPSO
Method

42,145.79 41,327.00
17.0692

16.0692

MOGAGSHDC
(IP Based)

MOGAGSHDC
(PSO
Based)

41,877.00

41327.00

17.2410

16.5312

When compared to GSHDC-IP, the results of GSHDC-PSO are better in

all the three cases. Though, GSHDC-PSO is giving best results, for the
single objective of minimum fuel cost and the single objective of
minimum losses, individually, the MOGA-GSHDC (PSO based) is
giving a better compromised OPF solution including

both fuel cost

and losses.
5.5

OPF SIMULATION RESULTS - IEEE 14 BUS TEST SYSTEMMODIFIED PENALTY FACTOR METHOD
In addition to suboptimal solutions obtained through IP and

PSO methods, a modified penalty factor method presented in Section

5.4 is used to obtain suboptimal solution or a core point in High
Density Cluster. This section presents results for this case.
The GSHDC -penalty factor performance is evaluated on the
standard IEEE 30-bus test system [27]. The system consists of 41lines, 6-generators, 4-Tap-hanging transformers and shunt capacitor
banks located at 9-buses. The test is carried with a 1.4-GHz PentiumIV PC. The GSHDC -penalty factor has been developed by the use of

227

MATLAB version 7. The parameter settings to execute GSHDC-penalty

factor are probability of crossover=0.5, probability of Mutation= 0.7,
the population size is 20. The study is carried out for a total system
load of 283.4 MW. The power mismatch tolerance is 0.0001 p.u. and
other parameters are presented in Table 5.43.
Table 5.43:

Test-3 Objective-1 Case 2

Power Generation Limits and Generator cost parameters of IEEE

30 Bus System (Base MVA 100)
Bus

Pmin

Pmax

Qmin

Qmax

1
2
5
8
11
13

0.5
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.12

2
0.8
0.5
0.35
0.3
0.4

-0.2
-0.2
-0.15
-0.15
-0.1
-0.15

2
1
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6

0
0
0
0
0
0

200
175
100
325
300
300

37.5
175
625
83.4
250
250

Table-5.44 Test-3 Objective-1 Case 2

Test results of GSHDC-penalty factor and EGA method [103]
GEN.
NO

BUS
NO

BUS VOLTAGES
EGA
[103]

GSHDCpenalty
factor

1.050

1.0600

1.038

1.0430

1.012

1.0100

4
5
6

8
11
13

1.020
1.087
1.067

1.0100
1.082
1.0710

TOTAL

ACTIVE POWER
GENERATION
GSHDCEGA
penalty
[103]
factor
176.20
48.75
21.44
21.95
12.42
12.02
292.79

177.216
48.3660

COST OF
GENERATION
GSHDCEGA
penalty
[103]
factor
468.84
126.89

468.3056
127.3034

21.203

50.19

49.3009

21.977
12.182
12.00

75.35
41.13
39.67

77.2442
40.6177
39.600

292.944

802.06

802.3709

The performance of GSHDC is -penalty factor compared with the

results of EGA [103] method and is tabulated in Table-5.44.

For a

given system load, the total generation in the system by GSHDCpenalty factor method is found slightly higher compared to that of EGA

228

[103] method. The % high values are presented in Table-5.45.

The

numerical difference can be ignored. The EGA [103] for an IEEE30Bus system is carried out with a computer having the same
configuration as mentioned above. Now, the comparison is made in
terms of generation cost and CPU time. The GSHDC -penalty factor
method gave less cost of generation. The GSHDC-penalty factor
method has completed objective-1 study in 8 seconds and objective-1
and objective -2 together in 12 seconds in contrast to 85 seconds that
is taken by EGA method. The authors of EGA method in their
conclusions have mentioned the high execution time of their method.
This proves the GSHDC-penalty factor method is quite acceptable for
large size power systems and for on-line studies.
Table-5.45: Test-3 Objective-1 & Objective-2 Case 2
Generation Schedule of GSHDC-penalty factor Compared to EGA [103]
Transmission
Losses
Objective-2

EGA[103]

292.79

MW

%High
compared to
EGA method

%High
compared to
EGA method

Method
MW

CPU
Time

Total cost

$/h

%High
compared to
EGA method

Total Active
Power Generation
Objective-1

Sec

----

9.39

----

802.06

----

85

GSHDC-penalty
factor ( Objective292.94
1 Total fuel Cost
minimum)

0.028

9.54

0.84

802.370

0.038

GSHDC-penalty
factor Objective-2
292.78
(Total loss
minimum)

-----

9.38

------

802.510

12

229

Next, the performance of GSHDC-penalty factor is compared with the

other methods and is tabulated in Table-5.46.
load and total generation,

the results of

For a given system

GSHDC -penalty factor

method is found better as compared to other existing methods.

However, Test-1 (sub optimal solution by IP method) and Test-2 (sub
optimal solution by PSO method) are much superior. Hence, Test-3
case (sub optimal solution by modified penalty factor method) is not
considered and not studied for other case studies like 14, and 57 bus
systems.
Table-5.46 Test-3 Objective-1 & Objective-2 Case 2
Generation Schedule of GSHDC-penalty factor Compared with
Evolutionary methods
OPF Method

Total Active
Transmission
Power Generation
Losses in MW
in MW

Total cost in
$/h

CPU
Time in Sec

GSHDCpenalty factor

292.8722

9.47

802.3709

EGA[103]

292.79

9.39

802.06

85

293.0372

9.6372

802.4484

315

292.7682

9.3683

802.62

51.4

GAOPF[26]
L.Lai
EPOPF[25]
Yuryevich

5.6

COMPARISON OF GSHDC-IP & GSHDC-PSO OPF RSULTS

WITH OTHER METHODS.
The simulation results of GSHDC-IP (with suboptimal solution

obtained through IP) method and GSHDC-PSO (with suboptimal

solution obtained through PSO) method have been presented in
earlier sections for two objectives (minimum fuel cost and minimum
power loss) and multi-objective for different case studies 14,30, and

230

57 bus systems. It can be observed, if single objective is the criteria,

GSHDC-PSO gives the best results. However, simulation results
indicate the multi-objective results are not far deviating from the best
results obtained from the single objective case studies.
This section presents comparative results of GSHDC-PSO with
the existing methodologies. A typical case study of IEEE 30-Bus
system is taken for the performance evaluation of the proposed
GSHDC-PSO. The comparison results are presented in Table 5.47.
Table-5.47 COMPARISON OF GSHDC-PSO OPF RESULTS WITH
OTHER METHODS.

OPF Method
GSHDC-PSO
MOGA-GSHDC
(PSO based)
EGA[103]

Total Active
Power
Generation
in MW
292.12

Transmission
Losses
in MW

Total cost
in $/h

CPU
Time
in Sec

8.7190

798.9925

2.54

292.12

8.7185

799.0021

8.475

292.79

9.39

802.06

85

IGAOPF[102] L.Lai

292.54

9.14

800.805

315

EPOPF[25] Yuryevich

292.7682

9.3683

802.62

51.4

AGA[105] Liladhur.G

297.45

14.05

801.17

433

As seen in Table 5.47, the results of GSHDC-PSO method are

found better as compared to other existing methods. Further, the
results obtained through MOGA-GSHDC (PSO based) are comparable
with those of GSHDC-PSO and better than other methods. Losses as
well as CPU time using GSHDC-PSO are much improved. Though the
single objective (of minimum fuel cost) GSHDC-PSO is giving best
minimum fuel cost, but the MOGA-GSHDC (PSO based) is giving a
better compromised OPF solution between losses and cost.

231

5.7

CONCLUSIONS
A novel method for the solution of Optimal Power Flow is

proposed in this chapter. The limitations of analytical and intelligent

methods have been overcome by the proposed methods namely,
GSHDC-IP Method, GSHDC-PSO Method, MOGA-GSHDC (IP based)
and MOGA-GSHDC (PSO based).
In this chapter, testing of GSHDC-IP Algorithm, for OPF problem
using suboptimal solution obtained by Interior Point Method is carried
out to obtain solution individually for minimum fuel cost and
minimum power loss. In addition testing of MOGA-GSHDC (IP based)
Algorithm has been carried out to obtain multi objective solution
simultaneously for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss. The
testing of these Algorithms has been done for the well-known standard
IEEE test cases such as 14-bus system, 30-bus system and 57-bus
system.
Similarly, testing of GSHDC-PSO Algorithm for OPF problem
using suboptimal solution obtained by PSO Method is carried out to
obtain solution individually for minimum fuel cost and minimum
power loss. In addition testing of MOGA-GSHDC (IP based) Algorithm
has been carried out to obtain multi objective solution simultaneously
for minimum fuel cost and minimum power loss.
When compared to GSHDC-IP, the results of GSHDC-PSO are
better in all the three cases. Though, GSHDC-PSO is giving best
results, for the single objective of minimum fuel cost and the single
objective of minimum losses, individually, the MOGA-GSHDC (PSO

232

based) is giving a better compromised OPF solution including both

fuel cost and losses.
Further, results of GSHDC-PSO are compared with the existing
methodologies. A typical case study of IEEE 30-Bus system is taken
for the performance evaluation of the proposed GSHDC-PSO. The
results of GSHDC-PSO method are found better as compared to other
existing methods. Further, the results obtained through MOGAGSHDC (PSO based) are comparable with those of GSHDC-PSO and
better than other methods. Losses as well as CPU time using GSHDCPSO are much improved. Though the single objective (of minimum
fuel cost) GSHDC-PSO is giving best minimum fuel cost, but the
MOGA-GSHDC (PSO based) is giving a better compromised OPF
solution between losses and cost.