32

CHAPTER 3

SINGLE-PHASE POWER FLOW ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

One of the important analyses carried out in power system is power

flow or load flow analysis. Power flow constitutes the most important study in
the planning and the expansion of power systems. In power system, at any
instant, the generation should meet out the active and reactive power demand
and losses. The losses can be calculated only if the load bus voltages are
known. Hence, it is necessary to formulate the mathematical equations to
determine the load bus voltage magnitude and phase angle. Power flow
studies involve the formulation of mathematical equation representing the
power system and its solution. The purpose of the study is to compute the
steady state operating condition of the system that is the voltage magnitude
and phase angle at the buses. From these, other quantities like real and
reactive power flows in transmission line (MW, MVAR), real and reactive
power supplied by generator and loading of transformers are calculated. From
the results, overloaded conditions and poor voltages existing in power systems
are detected.

The bus voltage angle separation between the generator buses or

between any two buses gives a qualitative idea of steady state stability of the
power system. The planning engineer performs the load flow calculations for
different configurations and loading conditions before deciding on the final
configuration. Power flow analysis is essential for economic power dispatch
also. It can be used for the optimal location and sizing of the capacitors for
improving the voltage profile.
 33

Conventionally, the load flow (power flow) problem is solved using

numerical techniques such as Newton-Raphson (NR) (Tinney and Hart 1967)
and Fast Decoupled (Stott and Alsaq 1973) methods. Solutions obtained using
these techniques depend on getting the inverse of the Jacobian matrix of the
system. Such techniques fail to solve the load flow in some conditions, like
heavy loaded system (near the maximum loading point of the system), ill-
conditioned system (where the line resistance to reactance ratio is high).
Iwamoto and Tamura (1981) proposed a method to solve the ill-conditioned
load flow problem. In order to overcome these problems, evolutionary
computation techniques have been used to solve the load flow problem.

Genetic Algorithm was used to solve the load flow problem (Yin
and Germay 1991 and Wong and Li 1996). However simple GA fails to
converge for large scale system. Modifications on GA were introduced to
obtain better performance (Wong and Li 1997 and Acharjee and Goswami
2008a and 2008b). PSO is a computational intelligence-based technique that is
not largely affected by the size and nonlinearity of the problem, and can
converge to the optimal solution in many problems (del Valle et al 2008). PSO
based algorithms were applied for power flow analysis (EL-Dib et al 2004 and
Acharjee and Goswami 2009). Even though these algorithms converge
quickly, they will not be reliable since PSO gets stuck in local optima.

In this chapter, the proposed MDEPSO and MHPSO algorithms are

applied to solve the power flow problem. The problem is represented in polar
coordinate and rectangular coordinate. The algorithms are tested on 6 bus,
IEEE 30 bus and IEEE 118 bus systems. The simulation results are compared
with the results obtained by NR method. The performance of MDEPSO is
compared with MHPSO and DE on statistical measures like best, mean,
standard deviation of results and average computation time, over 20
independent trials.
 34

3.2 REPRESENTATION IN POLAR COORDINATE

3.2.1 Formulation of objective function

The load flow equations are the power balance equations at each
bus, both active and reactive powers. The bus active and reactive powers are
specified at load buses (PQ buses) and active power alone is specified at each
PV bus. The powers can also be calculated using bus voltages. The load flow
solutions are the bus voltages which make the difference between the
specified and calculated powers as zero or within the tolerance (<0.001).
Therefore, the objective of the load flow is to find the voltage magnitudes and
angles of the different system buses that minimize the difference between the
specified power and the calculated power. Hence, the power flow problem can
be formulated as an optimization problem.

The following is the mathematical derivation of the load flow

problem as an optimization problem in polar coordinate.

Let Pi and Qi be the power mismatch equations defined as

follows:

n
Pi ( Vi Vj Yij cos( ij j i )) Pgi Pdi (3.1)
j 1

n
Qi ( Vi Vj Yij sin( ij j i )) Pgi Pdi (3.2)
j 1

i = l : n except slack bus

j=1:n
 35

Now the optimization problem can be formulated as follows:

Minimize f( V , )

Subjected to voltage limit at PQ bus ; Vmin V Vmax

Reactive power limit at PV bus ; Q min Q Q max

Combining Equations (3.1) and (3.2), the objective function is

formulated as follows:

Minimize f Pi2 Qi2 (3.3)

i

The objective of the load flow is to minimize ‘f’ to get the voltage
magnitudes and angles of the buses to satisfy the power balance equations.

3.2.2 MDEPSO Algorithm for Load Flow Analysis in Polar

Coordinate

The MDEPSO algorithm explained in the chapter 2 is applied for

solving the power balance Equation (3.1) and (3.2). The methodology is
explained step by step as follows:

1. Initialize a set of random values for bus voltages (XG). Bus

voltage magnitudes are generated randomly between 0.9 p.u
and 1 p.u and phase angles are between -0.1 radians and -0.5
radians.
xi = [|Vji |, ji]; i = 1 to Np; j = 1 to n (except slack bus)
and |Vji| = |Vj|specified for PV buses.
Np - Population size; n - number of buses.
 36

2. Set iteration count G = 1; x Gi [ VjiG ; G

ji ];

3. Using power mismatch Equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3)

calculate the fitness1 f (x iG ) .
4. DE operator:

i) Perform mutation and crossover. Generate a new set of

population for bus voltages X’G

x 'G
i x Gr1 Fs (x rG2 G
x r3 ) [ VjiD ; D
ji ]

ii) Substituting this voltage in the power mismatch

Equations (3.1) and (3.2), calculate the fitness2 f (x 'G
i )

5. PSO operator
i) Choose XG ([|Vji| ji]) as present particle.
ii) Generate pbest. For ith particle, if fitness1 is lesser than
fitness2, then pbest is selected from parent voltage, else
it is selected from target voltage.
pbest i x iG [ VjiG ; G
ji ]; if f (x iG ) < f (x 'G
i )

else pbest i x i'G [ VjiD ; D

ji ];

iii) Generate gbest from overall best.

iv) Using Equations (2.1) and (2.2) update the velocity and
position of XG and get the new voltage vector X’’G
veiG 1 w*veiG rand*c1 *(gbest xiG ) rand*c2 *(pbest i x iG )

The position of each particle is updated by using this

velocity vector by
x "G
i x Gi veiG 1

x "G
i [ VjiPSO ; PSO
ji ];
 37

v) The new voltage vector calculated in step (iv) is used to

calculate the fitness3 f (x "G
i ) using the power mismatch

equations.
6. By comparing fitness1, 2 and 3, select the best particle for next
iteration
if f (x"G
i ) f (x iG ) f (x i'G ) then x Gi 1
x Gi [ VjiG ; G
ji ];

else if f (x iG ) f (x 'G
i ) f (x "G
i ) then x iG 1
x i'G [ VjiD ; D
ji ];

else x Gi 1
x "G
i [ VjiPSO ; PSO
ji ];

7. Increase the iteration count G = G+1.

8. Check for maximum number of iterations. If not, go to step 3
and repeat the steps.
3.2.3. MHPSO Algorithm for load flow analysis in polar coordinate

MHPSO algorithm explained in chapter 2 is applied to solve the

power flow problem. The steps involved are as follows:

1. Initialize a population of particles for bus voltages. Bus

voltage magnitudes are generated randomly from 0.9 p.u. to 1
p.u. and phase angles are from -0.1 radians to -0.5 radians.

2. Set iteration count G = 1

3. For each particle set, calculate the fitness value using

Equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3)

4. From the Np population set, select pbest and gbest by

comparing the fitness values of present particles and over all
particles. The voltage vector set which produces the minimum
fitness value is considered as the best particle. pbest is the
position of the best particle at that particular iteration and
gbest is the position of the best particle up to that iteration.
 38

5. From the randomly chosen parent particles produce child1 and

child2 using Equations (2.3) and (2.4)

6. To increase the convergence speed, replace the particle which

produces very high fitness value by the average of the best
two particles. Calculate the velocity using Equations (2.1),
(2.5) and (2.6) and update the position of the particle (voltage)
according to Equation (2.2).

7. Increase the count G = G +1

8. Repeat the steps 3 to 7 for fixed number of generations G.

3.2.4. Case study

All the simulation studies performed in this research work are

carried out in MATLAB 7 environment running in a Pentium Dual Core, 1.75
GHz, CPU Machine.

For all the case studies the PSO and DE parameters are set as
follows:

Algorithm Constants Set value

PSO c1 1.5
c2 1.5
Inertia weight w 0.9 to 0.1
DE Mutation constant Fs 1.2
Cross over constant Cr 0.8

First the algorithms are tested on a simple 6 bus system (Wood and
Wollenberg 1996). Line data and bus data for this sample system are given in
Appendix 1. The power flow problem is solved using DE, MHPSO and
 39

MDEPSO algorithms. The population size taken for this system is 50. The
simulation results are taken after 500 iterations. 20 independent trials are
considered for each algorithm. The best results are considered as the solution
of the particular algorithm. Table 3.1 shows the best solution obtained for bus
voltages of sample 6 bus system. From Table 3.1, it is clear that the results
obtained by all the algorithms are same as that of NR method. Table 3.2
compares the accuracy that is the power mismatch obtained by MDEPSO and
other algorithms. Statistical performances of these evolutionary algorithms are
given in Table 3.3. All the algorithms provide very low value of standard
deviation. This shows the consistency of these algorithms. Mean value shows
that all trials are able to provide the converged solution. Figure 3.1 shows the
convergence characteristics during the initial iterations (upto 40 iterations).
Figure 3.2 shows the same upto 300 iterations. If the maximum power
mismatch (less than 0.001) is set as the stopping criteria, then MHPSO
converges quickly. If the program is allowed to run upto 500 iterations, the
accuracy of MDEPSO is greater than DE and MHPSO. If the tolerance is set
as 0.001, MHPSO algorithm is preferred as it converges quickly. MDEPSO
takes more time for convergence. When the accuracy is considered as the
main criteria, MDEPSO is preferable since it gives very high accuracy.

Table 3.1 Bus Voltages of 6 bus system for power flow problem in polar
coordinate

Bus Newton-Raphson MHPSO DE MDEPSO

Number Voltage Phase Voltage Phase Voltage Phase Voltage Phase
Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle
(pu) (deg) (pu) (deg) (pu) (deg) (pu) (deg)
1 1.0500 0 1.0500 0 1.0500 0 1.0500 0
2 1.0500 -3.671 1.0500 -3.5924 1.0500 -3.5104 1.0500 -3.6726
3 1.0700 -4.273 1.0700 -4.2399 1.0700 -4.0508 1.0700 -4.2742
4 0.9895 -4.196 0.9896 -4.1482 0.9895 -4.0685 0.9895 -4.1940
5 0.9857 -5.276 0.9856 -5.1394 0.9857 -5.1098 0.9857 -5.2769
6 1.0046 -5.947 1.0044 5.9358 1.0047 -5.7283 1.0046 -5.9473
 40

Table 3.2 Comparison of power mismatches for 6 bus system for power
flow problem in polar coordinate

Algorithm MHPSO DE MDEPSO

Maximum Power mismatch 3.39*10-5 1.02*10-6 4.43*10-9

Table 3.3 Statistical performances of EAs for 6 bus system for power
flow problem in polar coordinate

Method Best Mean Standard Time per

Deviation iteration (sec)
DE 1.02*10-6 1.57*10-5 1.13*10-4 0.0305
MHPSO 3.39*10-5 1.1*10-4 9.13*10-4 0.0294
MDEPSO 4.43*10-9 5.19*10-8 2.81*10-8 0.0386

Figure 3.1 Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system during initial

iterations (upto 40 iterations) for power flow problem in
polar coordinate (Base case loading)
 41

Figure 3.2 Convergence characteristics (upto 300 iterations) for 6 bus

system for power flow problem in polar coordinate (Base case
loading)

Additionally, these algorithms are validated by testing on heavily

loaded system. The real power demand at bus number 4 is increased to the
maximum value. The increased demand data for the 6 bus system is given in
Table 3.4. The above said evolutionary algorithms are again used to solve this
case. 20 independent trials are considered for each evolutionary algorithm.
The best results are taken and are given in Table 3.5. NR method diverges and
fails to solve this problem. The proposed MDEPSO algorithm converges with
lesser power mismatch (<0.001). DE and MHPSO give the solutions but the
maximum power mismatch is greater. The convergence characteristics are
shown in Figure 3.3.
 42

Table 3.4 Demand Data of sample 6 bus system with increased Real
Power Demand at 4th bus

Bus No Type Real Power Reactive Power

Demand Pd (pu) Demand Qd (pu)
1 Slack 0 0
2 PV 0 0
3 PV 0 0
4 PQ 5.34 0.7
5 PQ 0.7 0.7
6 PQ 0.7 0.7

Table 3.5 Bus voltages of 6 bus heavily loaded system for power flow
problem in polar coordinate

Bus NR MHPSO DE MDEPSO

Number
Voltage Phase Voltage Phase Voltage Phase
Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle
(pu) (pu) (pu) (deg)
Fails to (deg) (deg)
1 Converge 1.0500 0 1.0500 0 1.0500 0
2 1.0500 -35.633 1.0500 -41.045 1.0500 -41.159
3 1.0700 -34.842 1.0700 -36.287 1.0700 -39.669
4 0.7138 -47.454 0.6771 -50.561 0.6454 -54.419
5 0.9150 -31.741 0.9044 -32.555 0.8918 -35.283
6 0.9915 -36.860 0.9892 -37.789 0.9863 -41.142
Maximum power 0.00147 0.00169 0.00018
mismatch
Qlimit is off.
 43

Figure 3.3 Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system for power flow
problem in polar coordinate (Heavily loaded system)

Furthermore, DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms are tested on

IEEE 30 bus system. The data is given in Appendix 2. The population size
taken for this case is 150. The simulation results are taken after 500 iterations.
The statistical measures like mean, best, and standard deviation are calculated
from 20 independent trials. Statistical performances are given in Table 3.6.
Standard Deviation of DE is lesser than MHPSO. MDEPSO gives very low
standard deviation, which proves its consistency. The mean value of
MDEPSO is lesser than DE and MHPSO, which shows that MDEPSO is able
to converge during all the trials whereas DE and MHPSO does not converge
during some of the trials. Compared to MHPSO, DE shows better results. For
all the three evolutionary algorithms, the convergence characteristics curves
are shown in Figure 3.4. The best solution is considered for the characteristic
curves. The solution is taken after 500th iteration. Characteristic curves show
that, MDEPSO algorithm gives higher accuracy. MHPSO shows better
 44

performance during the initial iterations and there is no change in the search in
later iterations. The bus voltage magnitudes obtained by using MDEPSO, DE
and MHPSO algorithms are represented as bar chart and are given in
Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 respectively.

Table 3.6 Statistical performances of EAs for IEEE 30 bus system for
power flow problem in polar coordinate

Method Best Mean Standard Time per

Deviation iteration (sec)
DE 0.0001 0.0049 0.002 0.3821
MHPSO 0.00031 0.008 0.0041 0.3524
MDEPSO 1.0*10-5 6.87*10-4 4.63*10-4 0.5623

Figure 3.4 Convergence characteristics for IEEE 30 bus system for

power flow problem in polar coordinate
 45

1.4

1.2
Magnitude of bus voltages

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Bus number

Figure 3.5 Magnitude of bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system using

MDEPSO

1.4

1.2

1
Magnitude of bus voltage

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Bus number

Figure 3.6 Magnitude of bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system using

MHPSO
 46

Figure 3.7 Magnitude of bus voltages of IEEE 30 bus system using DE

To check the ability of the EAs to solve higher order systems, these
algorithms are tested on IEEE 118 system. The data are given in Appendix 3.
The population size is increased to 600. The performances are carried out for
20 trials and for each trial 500 iterations are considered. Statistical
performances of the evolutionary algorithms along with the time per iteration
are given in Table 3.7. MHPSO and DE can not solve the problem. Even
though MDEPSO is able to converge, it takes more time. High value of
standard deviation shows that, there is a large difference in the results during
the trials. High mean value indicates that only a few trials are able to give the
converged results. Best values show that DE and MHPSO are not able to
converge within the tolerance. The characteristic curves are given in Figures
3.8. Even though, MDEPSO takes more time for single iteration, it converges
within 100th iteration and so the total computational time is lesser. MHPSO
settles to the final value quickly but it doesn’t give the accurate result. Bus
 47

voltage magnitudes obtained using MDEPSO algorithm is given as bar chart in

Figure 3.9.

Table 3.7 Statistical performances of EAs for IEEE 118 bus system for
power flow problem in polar coordinate

Method Best Mean Standard Time per

Deviation iteration (sec)

DE 0.0075 0.0186 0.0144 1.3012

MHPSO 0.021 0.0528 0.0328 1.1422

MDEPSO 1.02*10-4 0.0057 0.0117 2.0431

Figure 3.8 Convergence characteristics for IEEE 118 bus system for
power flow problem in polar coordinate
 48

1.4

1.2

bus voltage magnitude (p.u)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
5 10 15 20 25 30
bus number

Figure 3.9(a) Magnitude of bus voltages for IEEE 118 bus system using
MDEPSO (from buses 1 to 30)

1.4

1.2
bus voltage magnitude (p.u)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
35 40 45 50 55 60
bus number

Figure 3.9(b) Magnitude of bus voltages for IEEE 118 bus system using
MDEPSO (from buses 31 to 60)
 49

1.4

1.2
bus voltage magnitude (p.u)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
bus number

Figure 3.9(c) Magnitude of bus voltages for IEEE 118 bus system using
MDEPSO (from buses 61 to 118)

3.3 REPRESENTATION IN RECTANGULAR COORDINATE

3.3.1 Formulation of Objective Function

Power flow problem may be either formulated in polar coordinate

or in rectangular coordinate.

The following is the mathematical derivation of the load flow

problem as an optimization problem in rectangular coordinate.

Let Pi and Qi the power mismatch equations defined as follows:

Pi Ei j
(G ijE j BijFj ) Fi j
(G ijFj BijE j ) Pgi Pdi (3.4)

Qi Fi j
(G ijE j Bij Fj ) Ei j
(G ijFj BijE j ) Q gi Qdi (3.5)
 50

where j = l to n; i =1 to n except slack bus.

Now the optimization problem can be formulated as follows:

Minimize f (E, F)

Subjected to limits on voltage at PQ bus

Reactive power limit at PV bus

f i
Pi2 Qi2 (3.6)

The objective function of the load flow is to minimize f to get the

real and imaginary parts of bus voltages to satisfy the power balance
equations.

3.3.2 MDEPSO Algorithm for load flow analysis in rectangular

coordinate

The MDEPSO algorithm explained earlier is applied for solving the

power balance equation (3.4) and (3.5). The procedure is presented as follows:

1. Initialize a set of random values for real (E) and imaginary (F)
parts bus voltages. Eji is generated between 0.9 p.u and 1 p.u
and Fji is generated from 0.0 p.u to -0.1 p.u. Random numbers
for E is generated for PV and PQ buses. Random numbers for
F is generated for only load or PQ buses. F for PV bus is
derived from specified voltage magnitude and the generated E.
xi = [Eji ,Fji]; i = 1 to Np; j = 1 to n except slack bus
Np -Population size n = number of buses.

2. Set iteration count G = 1; x iG [EGji ; FjiG ] ;

 51

3. Using power mismatch Equations (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6)

calculate the fitness1 f (x iG ) .
4. DE operator:

i) Perform mutation and cross over. Generate a new set of

population for bus voltages X’G

x 'G
i x r1G Fs (x rG2 G
x r3 ) [E Dji ; FjiD ]

ii) Substituting this voltage in the power mismatch

Equations (3.4) and (3.5), calculate the fitness2 f (x 'G
i ).

5. PSO operator

i) Choose XG ([Eji ,Fji]) as present particle .

ii) Generate pbest. For ith particle, if fitness1 is lesser than
fitness2, then pbest is selected from parent voltage, else
it is selected from DE voltage.

pbest i x Gi [E Gji ; FjiG ]; if f ( x iG ) < f ( x i'G )

else pbest i x i'G [ E Dji ; FjiD ];

iii) Generate gbest from overall best.

iv) Using Equations (2.1) and (2.2), update the velocity and
position of XG and get the new voltage vector.
x "iG [E PSO PSO
ji ; Fji ];

v) The new voltage vector calculated in step (iv) is used to

calculate the fitness 3 f (x "G
i ) using the power mismatch

equations.
 52

6. By comparing fitness1, 2 and 3, select the best particle for next

iteration
if f (x"G
i ) f (x iG ) f (x i'G ) then x Gi 1
x Gi [E Gji ; FjiG ];

else if f (x iG ) f (x 'G
i ) f (x "G
i ) then x iG 1
x i'G [E Dji ; FjiD ];

else x Gi 1
x "G
i [E PSO PSO
ji ; Fji ];

7. Increase the iteration count G = G+1.

8. Check for maximum number of iterations. If not, go to step 3
and repeat the steps.

3.3.3 MHPSO Algorithm for load flow analysis in rectangular

coordinate

Initialize the voltage vector as mentioned in section 3.3.2 and

repeat the steps described in section 3.2.3

3.3.4 Case study

The MDEPSO, MHPSO and DE algorithms are initially tested on

the 6 bus system mentioned earlier in solving the power flow problem in
rectangular coordinate. The population size of 50 is taken for this system. The
simulation results are taken after 500 iterations. The maximum power
mismatch is set as the stopping criteria; If the maximum power mismatch is
lesser than 0.0001, the results are taken. If it does not converge, then the
results are taken after 500 iterations. 20 independent trials are considered for
each algorithm. The best results are considered as the solution of the particular
algorithm. Table 3.8 shows the real and imaginary parts of bus voltages
obtained from NR, DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO methods. The results clearly
indicate that MDEPSO gives the same value of real and imaginary parts of
bus voltages as that of NR method. Table 3.9 compares the accuracy that is
the power mismatches obtained by EAs. All the above said algorithms are
 53

able to converge with the tolerance of 0.0001. MHPSO converges quickly

than DE and MDEPSO. Figure 3.10 shows the convergence characteristics.
Best results from each algorithm are considered for the convergence
characteristics. Table 3.10 gives the statistical performances of the
evolutionary algorithms. All the algorithms are able to converge before 500th
iteration in all the 20 trials. Very low standard deviation shows the
consistency of these algorithms.

Table 3.8 Real and Imaginary part of bus Voltages for 6 bus system
for power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Bus Newton-Raphson MDEPSO MHPSO DE

Number E(pu) F(pu) E(pu) F(pu) E(pu) F(pu) E(pu) F(pu)
1 1.05 0 1.05 0 1.05 0 1.05 0
2 1.048 -0.067 1.0478 -0.0670 1.047 -0.0658 1.048 -0.064
3 1.067 -0.079 1.0670 -0.0794 1.067 -0.0791 1.067 -0.0756
4 0.9868 -0.072 0.9867 -0.0722 0.9868 -0.0716 0.987 -0.07
5 0.9815 -0.091 0.9813 -0.0904 0.9815 -0.0882 0.9818 -0.0878
6 0.9991 -0.104 0.9990 -0.1038 0.999 -0.1039 0.9997 -0.1002

Table 3.9 Comparison of power mismatches for 6 bus system for

power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

MDEPSO MHPSO DE
7.0749*10-6 9.2897*10-4 3.8574*10-5
 54

Table 3.10 Statistical performances of EAs for 6 bus system for power
flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Algorithm Best Worst Mean Standard Deviation

DE 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00000001
MHPSO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00000001
MDEPSO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.00000001

0.05
DE
0.045 MHPSO
MDEPSO
0.04

0.035

0.03
Power mismatch

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
function evaluation 4
x 10

Figure 3.10 Convergence characteristics for 6 bus system for power flow
problem in rectangular coordinate

The algorithms are also tested on large scale power systems. For
demonstration IEEE 30 bus system and IEEE 118 bus systems are considered.
The population size taken for these cases are 150 and 600 respectively. The
simulation results are taken after 500 iterations. The statistical measures like
mean, best, and standard deviation are calculated from 20 independent trials.
 55

For 30 bus system, the obtained statistical performances of bus power

mismatches for DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO are given in Table 3.11. Standard
Deviation of MDEPSO is lesser than DE and MHPSO algorithms. It shows
that there is no much deviation between the results obtained during the trials.
It is inferred from worst and mean values that MDEPSO algorithm works
successfully in most of the trials. MDEPSO is superior to DE and MHPSO.
Figure 3.11 shows the convergence characteristics for 30 bus system. The
performance of DE is better than MHPSO, but it takes more time for
convergence. Table 3.12 shows the bus voltages of 30 bus system.

Statistical performances of the EAs for IEEE 118 system is given in

Table 3.13. Best value shows that MDEPSO converges where as DE and
MHPSO fail to converge for this higher order system. The standard deviation
of MDEPSO shows that during some of the trials it will not be able to
converge. For all the three evolutionary algorithms, the convergence
characteristic curves are shown in Figure 3.12. The best solution is considered
for the characteristic curves. Convergence characteristics show that MHPSO
reaches the optimum value quickly but it settles down in local optima and
does not give global optima. Both DE and MHPSO provide the results with
higher fitness values and do not converge. It is clear that MDEPSO converges
with higher accuracy than DE and MHPSO. It shows that MHPSO and DE
algorithms are not suitable for higher order systems. Bus voltages of IEEE
118 system obtained using MDEPSO algorithm is presented in Table 3.14

Table 3.11 Statistical performances of EAs for IEEE 30 bus system for
power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Algorithm Best Worst Mean Standard Deviation

DE 1.0000*10-3 0.0454 0.0104 0.0143
MHPSO 0.00121 0.0680 0.0108 0.0191
MDEPSO 1.0000*10-4 0.008 0.0018 0.0022
 56

Table 3.12 Real and Imaginary part of bus Voltages for IEEE 30 bus
system for power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

DEPSO DE HPSO
Bus
Real Imaginary Real Imaginary Real Imaginary
No
part part part part part part
1 1.06 0 1.06 0 1.06 0
2 1.0404 -0.0979 1.0404 -0.0979 1.0403 -0.0988
3 1.0122 -0.1338 1.0122 -0.1337 1.012 -0.1351
4 0.9988 -0.1632 0.9988 -0.1631 0.9985 -0.1648
5 0.9794 -0.2469 0.9794 -0.2467 0.979 -0.2481
6 0.9922 -0.1939 0.9923 -0.1937 0.9909 -0.1954
7 0.9779 -0.2231 0.9779 -0.2229 0.9766 -0.2244
8 0.9887 -0.2065 0.9887 -0.2063 0.9883 -0.2083
9 1.0193 -0.256 1.0194 -0.256 1.0185 -0.2593
10 1.0061 -0.2826 1.0061 -0.2826 1.0049 -0.2866
11 1.0494 -0.2636 1.0494 -0.2635 1.0486 -0.2669
12 1.0213 -0.2724 1.0213 -0.2723 1.0203 -0.2761
13 1.0348 -0.276 1.0348 -0.2759 1.0338 -0.2797
14 1.0035 -0.2844 1.0025 -0.2841 1.0014 -0.2881
15 0.9982 -0.2846 0.9982 -0.2846 0.9961 -0.2885
16 1.0069 -0.2795 1.0069 -0.2795 1.0049 -0.2832
17 1.0005 -0.284 1.0005 -0.284 0.9983 -0.2879
18 0.9855 -0.2925 0.9855 -0.2925 0.9843 -0.2965
19 0.9827 -0.2949 0.9827 -0.2949 0.9805 -0.2986
20 0.9828 -0.2927 0.9875 -0.2927 0.9854 -0.2963
21 0.9829 -0.287 0.9923 -0.287 0.9902 -0.2906
22 0.983 -0.287 0.9924 -0.2867 0.9913 -0.2906
23 0.9831 -0.2884 0.9857 -0.2883 0.9845 -0.2923
24 0.9832 -0.29 0.98 -0.29 0.978 -0.2933
25 0.9833 -0.2815 0.9783 -0.2815 0.9765 -0.2842
26 0.9834 -0.2836 0.959 -0.2835 0.9581 -0.2865
27 0.9835 -0.2742 0.9866 -0.2741 0.9849 -0.2765
28 0.9836 -0.2038 0.9862 -0.2037 0.9858 -0.2057
29 0.9837 -0.2895 0.9614 -0.2894 0.9596 -0.2918
30 0.9838 -0.3006 0.9454 -0.3006 0.9445 -0.3032
 57

Figure 3.11 Convergence characteristics for IEEE 30 bus system for

power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Table 3.13 Statistical performances of EAs for IEEE 118 bus system for
power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Standard Number of
Algorithm Best Worst Mean
Deviation successful trials

DE 0.0025# 0.0870 0.01 0.0198 0

MHPSO 0.0029# 0.089 0.013 0.0228 0

MDEPSO 1.0000*10-4 0.0188 0.0044 0.0048 3

# Power mismatch >0.0001 indicates the algorithms do not converge.
 58

Figure 3.12 Convergence characteristics for IEEE 118 bus system for
power flow problem in rectangular coordinate

Table 3.14 Real and imaginary part of bus voltages obtained using
MDEPSO algorithm for IEEE 118 bus system

Real part of bus Imaginary part of bus

Bus No.
voltage (pu) voltage (pu)
1 0.9375 0.1818
2 0.9515 0.1938
3 0.9473 0.1989
4 0.9614 0.2679
5 0.9631 0.2765
6 0.9635 0.2276
7 0.9642 0.2199
8 0.9473 0.3644
9 0.9184 0.4944
10 0.8508 0.6153
11 0.9597 0.2217
12 0.9666 0.2141
13 0.9481 0.1951
14 0.9633 0.2007
15 0.9506 0.1930
 59

Table 3.14 (Continued)

Real part of bus Imaginary part of bus

Bus No.
voltage (pu) voltage (pu)
16 0.9618 0.2077
17 0.9655 0.2406
18 0.9525 0.1987
19 0.9433 0.1887
20 0.9354 0.2021
21 0.9304 0.2282
22 0.9299 0.2725
23 0.9311 0.3621
24 0.9254 0.3573
25 0.9255 0.4959
26 0.8794 0.5069
27 0.9323 0.2604
28 0.9339 0.2308
29 0.9388 0.2147
30 0.9311 0.3212
31 0.9422 0.2176
32 0.9299 0.2502
33 0.9536 0.1828
34 0.9642 0.1964
35 0.9618 0.1879
36 0.9618 0.1879
37 0.9695 0.2055
38 0.9185 0.2827
39 0.9592 0.1447
40 0.9617 0.1265
41 0.9597 0.1187
42 0.9738 0.1482
43 0.9575 0.1941
44 0.9550 0.2371
45 0.9489 0.2680
46 0.9526 0.3202
47 0.9507 0.3611
48 0.9593 0.3495
49 0.9568 0.3677
50 0.9466 0.3256
51 0.9278 0.2724
52 0.9226 0.2543
53 0.9161 0.2358
54 0.9209 0.2528
 60

Table 3.14 (Continued)

Real part of bus Imaginary part of bus

Bus No.
voltage (pu) voltage (pu)
55 0.9193 0.2473
56 0.9204 0.2509
57 0.9313 0.2750
58 0.9237 0.2578
59 0.9288 0.3280
60 0.9125 0.3917
61 0.9081 0.4066
62 0.9152 0.3980
63 0.8931 0.3759
64 0.8947 0.4095
65 0.8897 0.4675
66 0.9309 0.4858
67 0.9250 0.4298
68 0.8889 0.4647
69 0.8963 0.5175
70 0.9083 0.3784
71 0.9138 0.3730
72 0.9142 0.3529
73 0.9189 0.3712
74 0.8903 0.3537
75 0.8906 0.3767
76 0.8756 0.3502
77 0.8983 0.4528
78 0.8980 0.4467
79 0.9011 0.4541
80 0.9097 0.5040
81 0.8791 0.4703
82 0.8791 0.4532
83 0.8651 0.4690
84 0.8400 0.5047
85 0.8302 0.5301
86 0.8444 0.5111
87 0.8659 0.5295
88 0.8016 0.5758
89 0.7727 0.6426
90 0.8229 0.5413
91 0.8186 0.5388
92 0.8219 0.5519
 61

Table 3.14 (Continued)

Real part of bus Imaginary part of bus

Bus No.
voltage (pu) voltage (pu)
93 0.8456 0.5051
94 0.8685 0.4751
95 0.8676 0.4557
96 0.8796 0.4587
97 0.8934 0.4733
98 0.9089 0.4718
99 0.8994 0.4596
100 0.8975 0.4784
101 0.8613 0.4902
102 0.8354 0.5294
103 0.9204 0.4159
104 0.9019 0.3598
105 0.9030 0.3402
106 0.9008 0.3347
107 0.9075 0.2876
108 0.9109 0.3216
109 0.9144 0.3147
110 0.9246 0.3030
111 0.9221 0.3318
112 0.9416 0.2531
113 0.9635 0.2401
114 0.9285 0.2440
115 0.9285 0.2439
116 0.8942 0.4588
117 0.9563 0.1850
118 0.8803 0.3546

3.4 CONCLUSION

The DE, MHPSO and MDEPSO algorithms are applied to solve the
power flow problem in polar and rectangular coordinates. For small scale,
lightly loaded system (6 bus), all the above algorithms work well. MHPSO
shows better convergence during the initial iterations. For heavily loaded and
higher order systems, the MDEPSO algorithm gives more accurate results
 62

compared to other evolutionary algorithms. Under normal loading condition,

it provides exactly the same solution as that of conventional NR algorithm. It
can also be inferred that MDEPSO converges even if the system is heavily
loaded whereas the conventional Newton – Raphson method fails to converge.

Convergence characteristics show that MHPSO converges quickly

but it settles down in the local optima and doesn’t give global optima for 118
bus system. DE takes more time to converge. The characteristic curves show
the effectiveness of the MDEPSO method for higher order systems. It gives
higher accuracy with lesser number of iterations. Even though time per
iteration for the proposed MDEPSO algorithm is greater, the total
computational time is less as it converges with lesser number of iterations.
Statistical measures indicate the consistency of this MDEPSO algorithm.
MHPSO and DE can converge and can give reliable results for simple small
scale system whereas fail to give accurate results for higher order systems.

Comparing rectangular and polar coordinates, there is no much

difference in the results.