Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Review article

Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch with FACTS devices:

A survey
Yasir Muhammad a , Rahimdad Khan a , Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja b,c , Farman Ullah c ,
∗
Naveed Ishtiaq Chaudhary d , Yigang He e ,
a
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Campus, Pakistan
b
Future Technology Research Center, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Douliou,
Yunlin 64002, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Attock Campus, Pakistan
d
Department of Electrical Engineering, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
e
School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the development of urban and rural infrastructure, the power system is enforced to operate
Received 17 April 2020 nearly at its full capacity which result in heavily stressed power grid operation, greater loss, peak
Received in revised form 4 July 2020 generation, security threat and instability of the electrical network. The performance of the legacy
Accepted 30 July 2020
electric network can be enhanced by solving optimal reactive power dispatch (ORPD) problems such
Available online 21 August 2020
as, tuning of the grid voltages, transformers tap setting, capacitor bank rating, allocation and sizing
Keywords: of flexible AC transmission system (FACTS) through computational intelligence tools. In last few
Computational intelligence decades, several optimization strategies are developed to solve ORPD problems but still research is
Optimal power flow in progress to leverage the performance of power system. In this line of thought, this paper provides a
Reactive power dispatch comprehensive literature of major optimization tools designed for the solution of ORPD problems with
aim of improving the power system performance. The purpose of this study is to document up to date
information on the optimal reactive power dispatch (ORPD), ORPD incorporating FACTS, mathematical
model of ORPD problems with corresponding constraints, mathematical model of FACTS in ORPD, and
applications of ORPD. At the end, a new computational tool based on fractional calculus has also been
introduced for performance improvement of traditional swarming techniques to support researchers
in field of energy/power sector and carry out further research.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2212
2. Introduction to FACTS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2213
3. Optimal reactive power dispatch incorporating FACTS ............................................................................................................................................. 2215
4. ORPD design.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2216
4.0.1. Line loss minimization ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2218
4.0.2. Total voltage deviation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2218
4.0.3. Cost minimization .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2219
4.1. Constraints .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2219
4.1.1. Inequality constraints ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2219
4.1.2. Equality constraints ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2220
5. Modeling of FACTS in ORPD.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2220
5.1. TCSC mathematical model ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2220
5.2. SVC modeling ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2220
5.3. FACTS devices constraint .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2221
6. Survey of ORPD problems in context of electricity market context ........................................................................................................................ 2221

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Yasir.ee@ciit-attock.edu.pk (Y. Muhammad), rdkhan59@yahoo.com (R. Khan), rajamaz@yuntech.edu.tw, Muhammad.asif@ciit-attock.edu.pk
(M.A.Z. Raja), farmankttk@ciit-attock.edu.pk (F. Ullah), naveed.ishtiaq@iiu.edu.pk (N.I. Chaudhary), yghe1221@whu.edu.cn (Y. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.030
2352-4847/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
2212 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229

7. Multi-objective optimization (MOO) and solution approaches ........................................................................................................................... 2221

7.1. Classical approach.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2221
7.2. The Pareto approach.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2222
8. Applications of MOO in power systems ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2222
8.1. VAr planning or reactive power planning (RPP)............................................................................................................................................ 2222
8.2. Economic/environment dispatch...................................................................................................................................................................... 2222
8.3. Transmission system designing........................................................................................................................................................................ 2223
8.4. Design of electric distribution system ............................................................................................................................................................ 2223
8.5. Planning of distributed generation (DG)......................................................................................................................................................... 2223
9. Advancement of renewable energy sources with the ORPD..................................................................................................................................... 2224
10. Proposed fractional evolutionary paradigm ................................................................................................................................................................ 2224
10.1. Introduction to FO-DPSO .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2224
11. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2225
Declaration of competing interest................................................................................................................................................................................ 2225
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2225
References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2226

2020), AMTPG-Jaya algorithm (Warid, 2020), PSO with entropy

1. Introduction diversity (Muhammad et al., 2020), biogeography-based opti-
mization (BBO) (Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay, 2010), moth-
Optimal reactive power dispatch (ORPD) has growing inter- flame optimization (MFO) (Mei et al., 2017), gravitational search
est for the research community in power sector due to their algorithm (GSA) (Shaw et al., 2014; Duman et al., 2012), bac-
importance in modern energy management system with aim to teria foraging optimization (BFO) (Tripathy and Mishra, 2007),
reduce the real power losses of the power system and improve- seeker optimization algorithm (SOA) (Dai et al., 2009a), chaotic
ment in the bus voltage while maintaining the load demand krill heard algorithm (CKHA) (Mukherjee and Mukherjee, 2015),
and operational constraints (Muhammad et al., 2019). The power firefly algorithm (FA) (Rajan and Malakar, 2015), teaching learn-
management is a necessary criterion for viable, effective and ing based optimization (Mandal and Roy, 2013), comprehen-
reliable operation of the electric network. The objectives of ORPD sive learning particle swarm optimization (Mahadevan and Kan-
are achieved by tuning the operational variables such as the nan, 2010), gaussian bare-bones water cycle algorithm (NGB-
generator voltages, reactive power compensator (Tushar and Assi, WCA) (Heidari et al., 2017), improved HSA (IHSA) (Valipour and
2017), transformer tap changers (Acha et al., 2000), and PWM Ghasemi, 2017; Sinsuphan et al., 2013), harmony search algo-
converters (Gayatri et al., 2018) to optimum value. However, the rithm (HSA) (Khazali and Kalantar, 2011), particle swarm opti-
adjustment of decision variables is a complex task due to non- mization (PSO) (Vlachogiannis and Lee, 2006; Zhao et al., 2005),
convex, non-linear and discrete nature of power system (Sub- artificial bee colony (ABC) (Ayan and Kılıç, 2012), and gray wolf
baraj and Rajnarayanan, 2009; Varadarajan and Swarup, 2008; optimizer (GWO) (Sulaiman et al., 2015). In addition, hybrid
Abril and Quintero, 2003; Kirschen and Van Meeteren, 1988; methodologies for solution of the ORPD problems have also been
Acha et al., 2000; Ghasemi et al., 2014b; Khazali and Kalan- proposed in literature such as PSO with imperialist competitive
tar, 2011; Sulaiman et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2005; Soler et al., algorithm (PSO-ICA) (Mehdinejad et al., 2016) and differential
2013). In order to solve ORPD problems in power network, as evolution with ant colony system (Huang and Huang, 2012). A
shown in Fig. 1, myrids of computational intelligence strategies summary of optimization strategies for ORPD problems is de-
along with their mathematical models are proposed, including picted in Fig. 2, while merits and demerits of the various ap-
the Newton method, interior point method, gradient-based algo- proaches for ORPD are documented in Table 1.
rithm (Granville, 1994), linear programming (Aoki et al., 1988; One may see that modern heuristic techniques have gained
Deeb and Shahidehpour, 1988) and quadratic programming (Lo the focus of researcher due to their computational efficiencies.
and Zhu, 1991). These mechanisms lacks certain strength in deal- In the aforementioned contributions, the developed techniques
ing with the non-convex and discrete nature (AlRashidi and El- and new variants of traditional methods are applied as the effi-
Hawary, 2009; Zhao et al., 2005), which results in loss of accuracy. cient optimization mechanisms for ORPD through estimation of
On the other hand, the stochastic search-based computational control variables including bus voltage, transformer tap position
mechanisms, such as the tabu search (TS) (Abido, 2002), genetic and reactive power (VAR) compensator. However, with the de-
algorithm (GA) (Wu et al., 1998; Durairaj et al., 2005) and evolu- velopment of power electronic based flexible AC transmission
tionary programming (EP) (Wu and Ma, 1995) are also designed system (FACTS) devices as an alternate, flexible, reliable, and sta-
to solve the optimization problems in reactive power planning ble VAR (reactive power) compensators, the researchers are know
(RPP). These methods successfully evaluated the global solution solving the ORPD problems in power system with incorporating
while handling nonlinear, discontinuous and non-convex fitness the FACTS devices. Until recently, the application of FACTS in
functions. The recent development and exploitation in meta- ORPD scenarios has been scarce, but the latest scientific devel-
heuristics computational strategies, far more better solutions of opments inspired a renewed interest in this research domain.
optimal reactive power dispatch problems have been achieved. Bearing these thoughts in mind, this study documents an updated
These mechanisms includes salp swarm algorithm (Kansal and information on the solutions of ORPD problems in power system
Dhillon, 2020), chaotic bat algorithm (Mugemanyi et al., 2020), by considering FACTS devices.
artificial bee colony algorithm (Ettappan et al., 2020), kinetic The salient features of this work are:
gas molecule optimization (Panthagani and Rao, 2020), quan-
tum behaved PSO (Naidji and Boudour, 2020), stochastic frac- (1) Comprehensive literature of ORPD strategies
tal search techniques (Duong et al., 2020), diversity enhanced (2) Documentation of ORPD studies with FACTS devices along
PSO (Vishnu and Sunil Kumar, 2020), modified wormhole opti- with mathematical model of problems and corresponding
mizer (Lenin, 2020a), water cycle algorithm (Lenin, 2020b), green constraints
lourie swarm, larus livens, alaskan moose hunting (Kanagasabai, (3) Literature about multi objective ORPD scenarios
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229 2213

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of power system problem.

Fig. 2. Solutions of ORPD problems.

(4) Introduction to fractional calculus based tool for traditional
optimizers
The rest of the paper is arranged as follow: Section 2 pro-
vides introduction to FACTS devices, Section 3 documents the
literature of ORPD with FACTS devices, Section 4 formulates the
mathematical model of fitness functions for canonical ORPD prob-
lems while Section 5 provides the influence of FACTS in ORPD
studies. Section 6 discuses the ORPD problems in context of
electricity market, Section 7 provides multi objective optimiza-
tion (MOO) approaches for solution of ORPD problems. Section 8
provides the applications of MOO in power systems, Section 9
introduces a mathematical tool to approve the strength of tra-
ditional optimization strategies and Section 10 summarizes the
conclusions.
2. Introduction to FACTS
FACTS are solid state flexible devices used to enhance the
transmission line’s power handling capacity, transient stability,
system reliability, load management, and power flow control. The
family members of FACTS devices can be seen in Fig. 3, whereas
the acronym description is listed below:
(1) Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC)
(2) Thyristor Switched Series Reactor (TSSR)
(3) Thyristor Controlled Series Reactor (TCSR)
(4) Thyristor Switched Series Capacitor (TSSC)
(5) Static Var Compensator (SVC)
(6) Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)
(7) Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)
(8) Thyristor Controlled Phase Shifting Transformer (TCPST)
(9) Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
The applications of FACTS devices and equivalent circuit can be
seen in Figs. 4 and 5. One can observe, that FACTS devices have
plethora of benefits, which motivates the research community to
explore their impact in ORPD studies.
2214 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229

Fig. 3. FACTS Devices.

Fig. 4. Types of FACTS with equivalent circuit and applications. Courtesy: ABB, Siemens, Electronic hub.
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229 2215

Table 1
Merits and demerits of the various approaches for ORPD (Shaheen et al., 2018; Saddique et al., 2020).
Ref. Year Algorithm Merits Demerits
Jabr et al. (2011) 2011 Penalty Successive Conic Handled dynamic load scenarios Utilized linear approximation of power balance equations
Programming Fast computational time High burden of computation because of multiple stage
VAR planning
Mahmoudabadi and Rashidinejad (2013) 2013 Interior Point (IP) method Iterative technique for evaluating steps Ignored the impact of tap position during ORPD
Chattopadhyay et al. (1995) 1995 Non Linear Programming Effective in contingency and dynamic Stuck at local optimum
loading, Fast computational time
Depends on initial points
Lin et al. (2012) 2012 Quasi-Newton method Fast and efficient in RPP Get stiff with increase in system complexity
Relaxed tap changer and generator constraints
Pal et al. (2013) 2013 Genetic Algorithm Ability to avoid trapping in local optimum Dependency on mutation rate
High degree of randomness Slow convergence rate
Ease of use
Kumar and Renuga (2009) 2009 Differential Evolution No dependency on initial parameter values Trial-and-error based parameter tuning
High convergence rate Crossover may destroy directional information
Less control parameters Unstable saturation with small population
Robust
Handle discrete and integer optimization
Xiong et al. (2008) 2008 Immune Algorithm Good convergence and efficiency High complexity
Avoid premature saturation using adaptive parameters
Dai et al. (2009b) 2009 Seeker Optimization Ability to balance searching and convergence ability Rely on parameters and algorithm structure
Avoid premature saturation using adaptive parameters Cannot find global optimum for multi modal functions
Wu and Ma (1995) 2009 Evolutionary programming (EP) High diversity System involving mutation raises complexity
Avoid premature saturation using adaptive parameters Cannot find global optimum for multi modal functions
Arya et al. (2010) 2010 Particle Swarm Optimization Suitable convergence rate Need penalty factor for constraints restriction
Requires less parameter adjustment Parameter initialization is based on trial and error
Least dependent on starting points Depends learning constants and weight
Easy implementation May stuck into local optima
El-Ela et al. (2011) 2011 Ant Colony Optimization Convergence is guaranteed Trial and errors based initialization of parameters
Inherent parallelism Apply linear approximation
Utilize positive feedback Difficult mathematical analysis and execution
convergence speed is slow
Adaptation capability
Rajan and Malakar (2015) 2015 Firefly Algorithm Good at exploration May trap into sub optimal solution
Self-improving process Parameters are time invariant
Bhattacharyya and Kumar (2016) 2016 Gravitational Search Algorithm Individual moves are highly random Parameter initialization is not robust
Good global exploration Weak local exploration
Ayan and Kılıç (2012) 2012 Artificial Bee Colony Less control parameters like maximum cycle number Poor exploitation properties
and colony size
Slow convergence speed
Ghasemi et al. (2014a) 2014 Teaching Learning Algorithm Considerable capability for both local and global Need more support in exploration characteristics
searching

Lenin et al. (2014)
Dutta et al. (2018)
Amrane et al. (2015)
Khazali and Kalantar (2011)
Rajkumar (2010)
Kheirizad et al. (2008)
Sheng and Li (2008)
Gopalakrishnan et al. (2004)
2014 Water Cycle Algorithm Good exploration characteristics
Less control parameters
2018 Chemical Reaction Optimization Vigorous against initial seeds
2015 Differential Search Algorithm Ability to find the global optimum region
Fast convergence speed
2011 Harmony search algorithm Suitable saturation properties
Simple mathematical model
Dynamic bw and PAR reduce the limitation
of keeping constants in algorithm model
2010 Hybrid PSO-DE Enhanced particle movement strategy
2008 Hybrid PSO-GA Good diversity
2008 Hybrid AI-ACA Rapidity of IA and positive feedback of
ACO avoid trapping in local optima
2004 Hybrid EP Direct search method improve the EP’s
May stuck into local optima
Weak local searching
Depends on initial kinetic energy
Treated fitness in two separate levels
i.e, as mono-objective optimization
Handled discrete variables as continuous
DSA is a new method and needs enhancement
Dependent on bandwidth vector, pitch adjustment rate
and harmony memory
High complexity
Computational complexity and burden
Parameters initializations is based on trial and error
High no. of control variables
Parameters initializations is based on trial and error
Slow convergence speed
Complexity mutation system

3. Optimal reactive power dispatch incorporating FACTS
FACTS provide considerable solution for several practical prob-
lems including power flow control, system damping, voltage reg-
ulation and power factor improvement without any topological
change and generation rescheduling. The solution of ORPD prob-
lems in power system incorporating FACTS devices has become a
topic of growing interest for the secure, reliable and economical
operation of power systems (Gerbex et al., 2001; Mei et al., 2017;
Heidari et al., 2017; Biswas et al., 2019, 2016). The objectives
of ORPD are achieve by tuning the operational variables such
as optimal sizing and allocation of FACTS based on optimiza-
tion algorithms. These computational techniques considerably
influence the performance of power network by enhancing sys-
tem load ability, voltage profile, voltage stability, reducing line
losses, and fuel cost (Awad et al., 2019; Sayah, 2018; Sang and
Sahraei-Ardakani, 2019; Naderi et al., 2019). However, the op-
timum sizing and allocation of the FACTS devices introduces a
complex constrained optimization problem and proper methods
are proposed for logical placement such as the voltage collapse
proximity indicator (VCPI) and modal analysis methods are used
to determine the weak buses for the allocation of FACTS de-
vices. Recently, myriads of strategies have been developed for
optimal sizing, coordination and placement of FACTS in power
networks to enhance its performance. We can refer to optimal
placement based on, whale Optimization (Nadeem et al., 2020),
tabu search algorithm considering both FACTS and DG (Coron-
ado de Koster and Domínguez-Navarro, 2020), MOPSO consid-
ering economic indices of network (Ghaedi et al., 2020), hybrid
ABC-PSO considering radial network (Sharma and Ghosh, 2020),
demand response program (Shayeghi et al., 2020), fuzzy-flower
pollination (Kim et al., 2020), cyber-security constrained (Parast-
vand et al., 2020), honey-bee mating algorithm considering wind
unit (Shojaei et al., 2020b), hybrid PSO-CSA algorithm (Pati and
Karajgi, 2020) and improved squirrel search considering fuel cell
and wind farm (Han et al., 2020).
Besides, the recent contributions, ORPD problems are solved
by variety of methods in last few decades such as, the genetic
2216 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
Fig. 5. Types of FACTS with equivalent circuit and applications. Courtesy: ABB, Siemens, Electronic hub.
algorithm (GA) (Salkuti, 2019; Osman et al., 2004), analytical
method (Belati et al., 2019), fuzzy GA (Bhattacharyya and Gupta,
2014), gravitational search algorithms (Bhattacharyya and Kumar,
2016), artificial bee colony with firefly (Shareef and Rao, 2018),
differential evolution (Sakr et al., 2017), quasi-oppositional chem-
ical reaction optimization (Dutta et al., 2018), improved gravita-
tional search algorithm (Chen et al., 2017), ant lion optimizer (Ra-
jan et al., 2017), whale optimization algorithm (Raj and Bhat-
tacharyya, 2018), adaptive particle swarm optimization (Bhat-
tacharyya and Raj, 2016), PSO with entropy diversity (Muham-
mad et al., 2020) and chaotic krill herd algorithm (Mukherjee
and Mukherjee, 2016). All these presented mechanism have their
own importance, application, impact and limitations for finding
the solution of dispatch problems.
For reliable statistics, a query has run in November, 2019
about ‘‘Optimal reactive power dispatch and reactive power plan-
ning and FACTS for last 25 years’’ on web of science data base. The
number of contribution per year since last 25 years can be seen in
Fig. 6, which show a growing trend of researcher in this field and
mostly technical articles are published as shown in Fig. 7. Author
wise and country wise contributions can be assessed through
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The percentage of considered objective
functions and category of solver can be seen in Figs. 10 and
11, respectively. The presented data endorsed the importance of
ORPD in energy and power sector.
4. ORPD design
The aim of ORPD is to increase the power system perfor-
mance in terms of line loss minimization, outage management,
transmission line capacity improvement, voltage improvement,
network security and overall cost minimization (Abido, 2006).
The target of the optimization defines the fitness function of the
ORPD problem. Traditional objectives considered in these studies
are given below while detail can be seen in Fig. 12:
(1) minimization of system overall cost.
(2) minimization of transmission line losses.
(3) maximizing the power handling capacity.
(4) minimizing stability index
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229 2217

Fig. 6. Statistics of publications per year as per web of science since last 25 years.

Fig. 7. Types of contribution in last 25 years.

Fig. 8. Authors contribution in last 25 years.

The mathematical interpretation of optimal reactive power dis- while d represents the dependent variable such as transmis-
patch problems is given as: sion line loading, generator reactive power and load bus voltage.

fmin (c , d) (1) y(c , d) = 0 represents the equality constraints that are tra-
ditionally derived from conventional power balance equations.
s.t .y(c , d) = 0 (2)
z(c , d) ≤ 0, which represents the inequality constraints, are the
z(c , d) ≤ 0 (3)
boundaries on the decision variables and the operating limit on
Here, fmin (c , d) is a scalar fitness function, c represents the con- the other variables of the system. The work flow diagram for
trolled variables such as generator’s active power and voltage ORPD can be seen in Fig. 13.
2218 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229

Fig. 9. Country wise contribution in last 25 years.

bus, respectively. In addition, the line reactance is also influenced

by tap setting of transformers while bus voltage with shunt
capacitors where it is coupled. To limit the operational constraints
within allowable limits, penalty function has been introduced to
penalize any violation in decision variables, because deviation
from permissible limits, causes severe damage to the power sys-
tem. The imposed penalty will be zero if the decision variables
doest not violate the limits. The general form of objective function
including the penalty function is expressed as:

Minimize : F : Ploss (Z ) + f (ch , cg ) (5)

The transmission line losses are dependent on set of variables

Z ϵ[Q , T , V ] that represents shunt reactive power compensators
Qi (capacitor bank), control bus voltages Vi and transformer tap
Fig. 10. Percentage of considered fitness evaluation functions. positions Ti in IEEE standard system. f (ch , cg ) represents penalty
function where cg and ch are the penalty coefficients for in-
equality and equality constraints, respectively. The overall fitness
function based on the penalty function can be modeled as
2
rQm (Qm − Qmlim ) + rgm (Vm − Vmlim )2 +
∑ ∑
F = Ploss +
(6)
Tmlim )
∑
rTm (Tm −
Qmmax ; Qm > Qmmax
{
lim
QGm = , m = 1, 2, . . . , KG (7)
Qmmin ; Qm > Qmmin
Vmmax ; Vm > Vmmax
{
Vmlim = , m = 1, 2, . . . , KG (8)
Vmmin ; Vm > Vmmin
Tmmax ; Tm > Tmmax
{
Tmlim = , m = 1, 2, . . . , KT (9)
Tmmin ; Tm > Tmmin
Here, Q is reactive power output of generators, V is the voltage
Fig. 11. Percentage of computational techniques for RPD in power grids. at generator bus, and T represents tap setting of transformer, KT
is the numbers of transformer with tap changer and KG is the
number of generators in power system. The minimum and max-
4.0.1. Line loss minimization imum values of Qm , Vm , and Tm in above expressions represents
The transmission line losses are computed using load flow the control variable’s permissible limits.
methods in electric networks. These losses are dependent on
certain parameters of power system such as, conductance of 4.0.2. Total voltage deviation
transmission line, bus voltage amplitudes, and associated angles
Another important objective of ORPD study is to regulate the
which can be mathematically expressed as (El Ela et al., 2011)
voltage at each node/bus of power system. For stable operation
nl of power system, the bus voltage in power system should be as
∑
2
+ Un2 − 2 × Um × Un cos(δm − δn )
[ ]
PLoss = Gr Um (4) smooth as possible. The degree of voltage regulation is computed
r =1 through total voltage deviation (TVD) index which measures the
here, Um and Un are voltage magnitudes at mth and nth bus, bus voltage deviation from reference voltage (1.0 p.u) at each
nl represents total number of transmission lines, Gr is the con- bus. For instance, minimum value of TVD implies that all the
ductance of rth line, δm and δn are voltage angles at mth and nth bus voltages are near to reference voltage, hence a smoother
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
Fig. 12. Objectives of optimal reactive power dispatch.
Fig. 13. Optimal reactive power dispatch.
voltage profile. The objective function for TVD is mathematically
represented as below (Khazali and Kalantar, 2011).
nload
∑ 4.1. Constraints
TVD = |Vm − 1.0|
m=1
here, nload represents the total number of load-buses.
4.0.3. Cost minimization
The cost minimization function consists of capital cost of in-
stalled devices, system operational cost and cost due to energy
loss. The first part represents the capital cost of axillary devices
like FACTS, or others, the second part represents the opera-
tional cost, which is normally neglected in case of hydro power
generation, whereas, third part is included as a penalty due to
transmission line losses. Therefore, the aim of ORPD is not just to
reduce the cost associated with power losses but also to minimize
the capital cost of axillary devices that are used for reactive power
compensation, like TCSC and SVC, by optimal sizing of these
2219
devices. Thus, the overall fitness function for cost minimization
is given as:
CTotal = CCpex + COpex + CEnergy , (11)
where
CEnergy = 0.06 · 365 · 24 · PLoss
Here, cost associated with power loss is 0.06 $/kWh, hours/day
are 24, days/year are 365. The cost CCpex , is associated to the
capital cost of FACTS and cited from the Siemens AG database as
CCpex = α (MVArating )2 + β (MVArating ) + γ (12)
where, α , β and γ are the cost coefficients which are different
for different FACT device while MVArating is the operating range
of FACTS in MVA. The cost functions for some of the devices such
as SVC, TCSC and UPFC are given as example below:
CSVC = 0.0003(MVArating )2 − 0.3051(MVArating ) + 127.38 (13)
CTCSC = 0.0015(MVArating ) − 0.7139(MVArating ) + 153.75
2
(14)
CUPFC = 0.0003(MVArating )2 − 0.2691(MVArating ) + 188.22 (15)
(10)
Traditional constraints in ORPD study includes the inequality
constraints such as, active and reactive power generation, bus
voltages, apparent power flow from transmission line and the
equality constraint such as the power balance equations. All these
constraints are considered in steady-state without considering
network contingencies which can take place temporarily. The
detail of ORPD operational variables is documented in Tables 2
and 3.
4.1.1. Inequality constraints
The expressions for inequality constraints are given below:
• Transformer boundaries
Tapmax
m m , m = 1, 2, . . . , NT
≤ Ti ≤ Tapmin (16)
2220 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229

Table 2 Here,
ORPD variable type. PDm and PGm , are the demanded and generated real powers at mth
Variable Types bus
State variables QDm and QGm , are demanded and generated reactive powers at
Slack bus power Continuous
mth bus
Branch currents Continuous
Network power flow Continuous Bmn and Gmn , are line susceptance and conductance between mth
Bus voltage imaginary & real parts Continuous and nth bus, respectively.
Bus voltage phase angle Continuous
Bus voltage magnitude Continuous
5. Modeling of FACTS in ORPD
Control variables
Transformer tap settings Discrete
Regulated bus voltage magnitude Continuous
To model FACTS devices in ORPD, traditional methods in-
Real/reactive power generation Continuous corporates the corresponding changes in the control variables
Load to shed Continuous, Discrete and power balance equations while finding the solution of prob-
Switched shunt reactive devices Binary lems (Berizzi et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007). Among the family
Transformer phase shifters Discrete, Continuous
Line switching Binary
of FACTS, the TCSC and SVC are most common in use for reactive
Standby start-up units Binary power planning and management in ORPD studies as they best
Generator voltage control settings Continuous fit for desired objectives. So, in the present study modeling of
FACTS controls Discrete, Continuous these two devices are just discussed. The TCSC is used as a series
HVDC link MW controls Continuous
compensating device and enhance the line capacity while the
MW interchange transactions Continuous
SVC is shunt compensating device and provide reactive power
at bus to improve the voltage profile and power factor. The
Table 3 mathematical model of ORPD problems after integrating FACTS
ORPD variable category.
device in the power system includes modification in decision
Inequality constraints Equality constraints
variables and power balance equations, which is discussed below.
Branch flow limits Steady-state security
Bus voltage limits Net active power export
Demand constraints DC power flow 5.1. TCSC mathematical model
Active/reactive power generation Decoupled AC power flow
Active/reactive power flow in line Full AC power flow The TCSC provides a variable reactive impedance equation jXc
Spinning reserve requirements – that can be altered above and below of the original impedance
Active/reactive power reserve limits –
Transmission interface limits –
line. The power system static model equipped with TCSC between
Control limits – the mth to nth buses can be seen in Fig. 10. The power flow
Environment constraints – equations for the active and reactive components after coupling
Transient contingencies – the TCSC are expressed as (Bhattacharyya and Raj, 2016)
Transient stability –
Transient security – Pmn = +Vm2 Gmn − Vm Vn Gmn cos(δm − δn )
(22)
−Vm Vn Bmn sin(δm − δn )

• Generator boundaries Qmn = −Vm2 Bmn − Vm Vn Gmn sin(δm − δn )

(23)
+Vm Vn Bmn sin(δm − δn )
Gm ≤ VGm ≤ VolGm , m = 1, 2, . . . , N
Volmax min
(17)
respectively. Similarly, the real and reactive power flow equations
max
QGm min
≤ QGm ≤ QGm , m = 1, 2, . . . , N (18)
from the nth to mth buses can be expressed as
• Shunt-VAR boundaries Pnm = +Vn2 Gnm − Vn Vm Gnm cos(δn − δm )
(24)
max
Qcm ≤ Qcm ≤ min
Qcm , m = 1, 2, . . . , Nc (19) −Vn Vm Bnm sin(δn − δm )
Here, max and min represents the upper and lower bounds,
respectively, NT represents total tap changer transformers, Qnm = −Vn2 Bnm − Vn Vm Gnm sin(δn − δm )
(25)
N represents total number of generators in system and +Vn Vm Bnm sin(δn − δm )
NC represents total buses where shunt compensators are
where the susceptance and conductance of the transmission line
coupled. −X −XTCSC R
are given by Bmn = and Gmn = ,
R2 +(X −XTCSC )2 R2 +(X −XTCSC )2
4.1.2. Equality constraints respectively.
In Load flow analysis, the power balance expressions are con-
sidered as equality constraints which defines that sum of all 5.2. SVC modeling
the powers including generated power, demanded power and
transmission line losses in power system is equal to zero (Khazali The SVC inject and absorb reactive power to and from the
and Kalantar, 2011). Mathematically, for any given bus m, the real bus bar which is governed by the phase-controlled operation
and reactive power balance equations are stated: of thyristor valve through quickly removing or adding parallel
N connected capacitor and reactors. The equivalent model of SVC
can be realized as a shunt connected variable susceptance BSVC at
∑
− Vm Vn [Bmn sin (δm − δn ) + Gmn cos (δm − δn )]
(20) any given bus-k. The injected reactive power flow from the SVC
n=1
−PDm + PGm = 0 into the bus can be written as (Bhattacharyya and Raj, 2016):
N
∑ Qsv c = BSVC V 2 (26)
−Vm Vm [Bmn cos (δm − δn ) + Gmn sin (δm − δn )]
(21) where V is the amplitude of bus voltage where the compensator
n=1
−QDm + QGm = 0 is installed.
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
5.3. FACTS devices constraint
The boundaries of equivalent reactance X offered by TCSC and
MVAR rating Q of SVC, are expressed as
−X p.u ≤ XTCSC ≤ X p.u
MVAR MVAR
−Q ≤ QSVC ≤ Q
6. Survey of ORPD problems in context of electricity market
context
ORPD is a very vast topic that is studied in power and energy
systems since first publication in 1962 by Carpentier. The main
purpose of using the ORPD solvers is to find such operational
conditions where system operates with least cost of generation,
operation, and maintains the performance of the system by lim-
iting the generator’s output power and increase the efficiency of
axillary devices (Abdel-Moamen and Padhy, 2003). ORPD gives
the optimal nodal prices of real power generated at each bus
which is one of the vital prospective considered in the electricity
market. Nodal prices at each bus has growing interest in mar-
ket as it corresponds the marginal price of dispatching more
energy units. These optimum values of prices, also known as
locational prices, maximize the social welfare while considering
the transmission constraints. In congested substation, locational
prices are different as compared to low stressed power grids,
where prices are equal. In all cases the aim of power dispatch
companies is to provide society with considerable incentives
in competitive market (Zhu and Momoh, 2001). The solutions
of ORPD problems are among the mechanisms designed under
different energy management systems (EMSs) due to their grow-
ing effectiveness which is being endorse by power companies
such as independent power producers in decentralized power
industry. The modern ORPD has explicitly rich techno-economic
significance as compared to traditional form ORPD. In context of
deregulated electricity market the studies of modern ORPD can be
extended into numerous research domains such as demand side
load forecasting, power transfer capability estimation, network
congestion management, real-time locational pricing, etc. (Abido,
2003b). The solutions of ORPD differs due to diverse application
domain in terms of problem formulation, solution strategy and
level of system complexity (Zhang and Wang, 2005).
6.0.0.1. ORPD based on transient stability. In electric power utility,
the main goal of deregulated market is to provide uninterrupted
and reliable service to its clients. This results with the impor-
tance of considering security constraints, for operating system
with considerable safety margin while formulating the market
pricing strategies. The report published in August 14, 2003 on
blackout in U.S and Canada has concluded that outage of a 345
kV power line has shifted the power system to such operating
condition, where it was unable to tolerate further contingencies.
The document further proposed its recommendation for the im-
plementation of proper corrective measures to stable the power
system operation in its desired secure condition. In ORPD stud-
ies, the power system should not only satisfy the conventional
constraints but also transient-stability constraints including the
rotor angle limits. These dynamic constraints are considered for
a given set of contingencies during transient period only and
mathematically represented with inequality constraints such as
rotor angle limits (Talukdar et al., 1983; Baughman and Siddiqi,
1991). The transient-stability constrained ORPD is a complex
nonlinear computational problem with both differential and alge-
braic expressions, hence solution for even small power systems
is difficult to be solved. The main issues in finding the solution
includes;
2221
(1) the disruption of traditional computational mechanisms in
non-convex and extreme nonlinear problem landscape
(2) the differential equations representing the transient behav-
ior of the system;
(27)
7. Multi-objective optimization (MOO) and solution ap-
(28) proaches
Several planning and operational issues in electric networks
are considered as large scale non-convex, non-linear and multi
variable problems, where the variable (both discrete and contin-
uous) search space increases with the scale of the network (At-
taviriyanupap et al., 2005; Wells, 1968; Bakirtzis et al., 2002;
Wang et al., 2007). Furthermore, such problems often require
the simultaneous computation of conflicting and multiple ob-
jective functions with complex non-linear constraints. In these
optimization problems a possible trade − off solution, is computed
which creates the optimal compromises among the objectives.
In literature, several different types of mechanisms have been
recommended and effectively implemented in power systems for
finding the optimal solution of multi-objective problems. In clas-
sical single-objective techniques such as the goal programming
method, the ϵ constraint method, and the weighted sum method
etc., a single objective computational tool is employed while the
given problem is reformulated to solve multi-objectives by setting
preferences among the objective functions. Due to its simple
structure, this mechanism was more usable and popular, however
some shortcomings were associated with this technique. The
latest developments in multi-objective (MO) heuristic algorithms
have proved that the population-based computational techniques
are better schemes for these types of problems. These algorithms
can also effectively be used to overcome the shortcomings of
traditional single-objective techniques including (i) the require-
ment of multiple trials to evaluate the Pareto-optimal solutions
and (ii) the sensitivity to the Pareto-optimal front shape. Sev-
eral MO evolutionary computation (MOEC) techniques, includ-
ing the multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO),
the strength Pareto evolutionary approach-2 (SPEA-2), the multi-
objective genetic algorithm (MOGA), niched Pareto GA (NPGA)
and non-dominated sorting GA-II (NSGA-II), employ the Pareto-
strategy for the Pareto-optimal solution of MO problems (Wang
et al., 2008; Wang and Singh, 2007). The details of classical and
Pareto approaches are given below.
7.1. Classical approach
This scheme incorporates single objective computational tech-
niques to address multi-objectives separately. The problem is re-
formulated as single objective by setting preferences between the
multiple objectives. The prominent techniques in this category
include the goal programming, the ϵ constraint and the weighted
sum method etc. (Vaziri et al., 2001; Srinivasan and Tettamanzi,
1997). The concept behind the goal programming technique is
reducing the sum of objectives divergence from user-defined
targets. The ϵ constraint technique consider a single-objective
function at a time while all other objectives as constraints. The
weighted technique utilizes weighted criterion and transforms
the given MO problem into an average scalar fitness function. Ev-
ery fitness function, which is to be optimized is assigned a specific
scalar weight, then combined into a single fitness function and
evaluated by any classical computational tool. Although, classical
method is more usable and popular due to its simple structure,
and provides considerable solutions, but it needs multiple tri-
als to generate Pareto-optimal solutions along with some other
disadvantages that are listed below.
2222 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
• Due to linear approximation in problem reformulation, this
method is not able to point all non-dominating solutions.
Those, which are positioned on the convex part of the Pareto
front can only be evaluated.
• The assigned weights are ad-hoc in this scheme because
the obtained solution depends on the relative values of the
specified weights.
7.2. The Pareto approach
This scheme utilizes techniques based on Pareto ranking for
computing and returning of all possible non-dominated solutions
to user. Most of the famous MOEA techniques implement this
method to evaluate and maintain a set of parallel Pareto-optimal
solutions throughout the computation procedure. In number of
scenarios, decision maker has no influence while developing this
set of solutions. The decision maker intervene after the comple-
tion of computation process and select one of the best Pareto
optimal solution from the generated set on the basis of fuzzy set
theory.
Among MOEC techniques, the most remarkable methods in-
cludes: the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm- 2 (SPEA-
2), the MO Genetic algorithm GA (MOGA), niched Pareto ge-
netic algorithm (NPGA), and the non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm-II (NSGA-II). Since the structure of PSO has many sim-
ilar characteristics as GA, it is also designed for Multi-objective
problems, refer as MOPSO. These techniques compute solutions
in a single run for multiple Pareto-optimal problems (Small and
Jeyasurya, 2007; Shrestha and Fonseka, 2004; Rivas-Dávalos and
Irving, 2005).
8. Applications of MOO in power systems
Besides the single objective optimization problem with only
one goal, the decision maker of real-world problems, is faced with
multiple goals. In principle, the existence of multiple objectives
in a problem, gives rise to Pareto-optimal solution, instead of a
single optimal solution (Yumbla et al., 2008; Abido and Al-Ali,
2012; Yan et al., 2006). The prominent benefits of multi objective
computational strategies include:
• it simplifies the process of decision making.
• it gives easy management of different goals.
• it indicates the consequences of the decision w.r.t all the
considered fitness functions.
Recently, number of techniques have been developed for com-
puting the optimal solutions in MOO scenarios while solving
the wide range of optimization problems in energy and power
sector. With the advancement in research, several MOEC methods
such as, NSGA-II, MOPSO, MOGA, NPGA, SPEA-2, etc. are designed
effectively for their application in power system as discussed
below (Rao, 2019; Ramírez-Rosado and Bernal-Agustín, 2001).
8.1. VAr planning or reactive power planning (RPP)
The Power system is forced to become stressed due to sud-
den switching(off/on) of major loads, unplanned outages of dis-
tribution, transmission and generating system. In this dynamic
behavior, volt ampere reactive (VAr) or optimal reactive power
planning (RPP) has become an important operational concern of
the system operator for power flow control and voltage regula-
tion within an allowable limits. These objectives can be achieved
by
• Optimal allocation of VAr sources
• Optimal sizing of reactive power compensators at different
loading conditions
• Type of VAr sources (FACTS devices, shunt capacitors, trans-
formers taps, synchronous generators)
As a result optimal amount of reactive power would be generated
and bus voltages will be maintained at desired level. The fitness
functions in RPP has several variants including line power han-
dling capacity, line losses, capital cost of the compensation de-
vices, security margin and voltage deviation index. The optimiza-
tion tool has to deal with much more complicated constraints
such as the contingency state limits, power-flow limits and volt-
age stability limits due to the load stress on transmission system.
Due to these complicated constraints, non-commensurable and
conflicting MO functions, RPP in power system is emerged as one
of the major challenging task for researchers (Ramirez-Rosado
and Bernal-Agustin, 1998; Pires et al., 2005).
Recently, several traditional and modern evolutionary tech-
niques have been reported in the literature that are widely im-
plemented for the solution of the RPP problems (Zhang et al.,
2007; Benabid and Boudour, 2007; Krami et al., 2008; Laifa and
Boudour, 2008; Mollazei et al., 2007; Small and Jeyasurya, 2007;
Zhu et al., 2014; Eghbal et al., 2009; Abido and Bakhashwain,
2005). Besides the reactive power planning in interconnected
transmission system, some contributions (Pires et al., 2005; An-
tunes et al., 2009) have also been presented for the RPP in radial
distribution network while minimizing system losses, capital cost
of VAr sources, and overall cost of operation. In Li et al. (2005), a
GA-Pareto integrated scheme has designed for RPP problem. The
computational evaluation through multi-objective paradigms, re-
ported in literature, have shown considerable effectiveness in
solving MO-RPP problems while improving the performance of
power system.
The objectives of reactive power dispatch problems consider-
ing decision variables are given as follows (Pindoriya et al., 2010;
Pindoriya and Singh, 2009; Ochoa et al., 2008):
• Minimize the slack bus power
• Maximize voltage stability margin
• Minimize voltage deviation
• Minimize volt–ampere compensation prices, etc.
Problem constraints:
• Size of VAr source
• Active Power balance equation
• Reactive Power balance equation
8.2. Economic/environment dispatch
Power system operator considers two important task for eco-
nomical operation of power system, the economic dispatch (ED)
and the unit commitment (UC). The main aim of traditional ED
problem is optimal placement of the generating units for overall
cost minimization subjected to diverse inequality and equality
variables of the power system. From the past few decades, util-
ities have shown growing interest in environmental issues such
as to reduce their nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission, sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) after the amendment in Clean Air
Act in November 1990. As a result, the optimization problems are
solved in power system by considering environmental issues with
other traditional, contradictory and incommensurable objectives.
Over the past decades, several techniques for the solution of
ED problem have been presented (Mollazei et al., 2007; Milosevic
and Begovic, 2003; Mendoza et al., 2006b,a; Maghouli et al., 2009;
Maciel and Padilha-Feltrin, 2009; Li et al., 2005; Le et al., 1995;
Latorre et al., 2003; Lee and El-Sharkawi, 2008; Koski, 1985; Laifa
and Boudour, 2008; King et al., 2006; Huang et al., 1997). The
traditional methodologies solved the problems by considering a
single objective at a time and incorporating the emission either
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
as weighted objective or as constraint with an allowable limit.
But, due to the non-commensurable and conflicting behavior of
emission with respect to fuel cost minimization, these traditional
schemes were inappropriate for such category of MOO problems.
However, with the development in optimization strategies dur-
ing recent years, simultaneous treatment of multiple objectives
through MOEC has gained growing interest of power utilities.
Recently, fuzzy clustering-based particle swarm (FCPSO) (Basu,
2008), fuzzified MOPSO (FMOPSO) (Wang and Singh, 2007),
MOPSO (Abido, 2009; Bo and Yi-Jia, 2005), NSGA-II (Basu, 2008;
King et al., 2006), SPEA, NPGA (Abido, 2003a), and NSGA tech-
niques, etc., are among the pioneers MOEC methods that have
been designed for the solution of MO ELD problems. In Abido
(2006b), a detailed study on Pareto-based multi objective evolu-
tionary computing paradigms including, SPEA, NPGA and NSGA
have been documented and effectively implemented to solve
ED problem, where, SPEA has shown better results in terms
of efficiency and diversity characteristics as compared to other
MOEC schemes. In majority of the above studies, the potential and
effectiveness of MOEC has been assessed on standard IEEE 30 bus
test in solving ED problems. The main objectives and operational
constraints are given as follows.
Objective:
• Minimize emission:
In thermal generation, the overall emission (ton/h) of envi-
ronmental pollutants including nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) is represented as combination of expo-
nential and polynomial terms.
• Minimize fuel cost:
The cost curve of generators is expressed as quadratic func-
tion of active power with sine function that show the rip-
pling effect due to switching of governor valves.
Problem constraints:
• Line thermal limits
• Generator capacity limit
• Power flow constraints
8.3. Transmission system designing
The transmission network expansion planning (TNEP) pro-
vides information about total number of circuits required to
confirm the reliable operation of power system while meeting the
load demand and minimizing the supply interruption, operational
and investment costs. Several techniques have been designed
for the solution of TNEP problem such as Das and Patvardhan
(1998a,b), Coello et al. (2007), Chung et al. (2003), Carrano et al.
(2006), Celli et al. (2005), Campoccia et al. (2008) and Latorre
et al. (2003). The TNEP is much more complex problem, partic-
ularly in the deregulated environment. The provision of demand-
side management and generation planning as a replacement for
system expansion sets new objectives in power system planning
such as congestion cost minimization (Shrestha and Fonseka,
2004). Different techniques based on MOEC paradigms are pre-
sented for solution of TNEP problems, e.g., NSGA II (Maghouli
et al., 2009) , SPEA (Wang et al., 2008) and hybrid GA (Chung
et al., 2003). The main objectives and technical constraints during
optimal expansion of transmission system are listed below
• The environmental impact
• Reliability
• Congestion price
• Network investment cost
2223
They, represent the incremental up gradation of transmission
system expansion in terms of reliability (both security and ade-
quacy ), congestion alleviation, and economic efficiency. In Wang
et al. (2008) and Chung et al. (2003) mathematical model of
reliability has been realized by considering the cost of power
outage and the index of the possible energy not delivered per
annum, respectively (Huang et al., 1997; Hazra and Sinha, 2007;
Khator and Leung, 1997; Garver, 1970; Eghbal et al., 2009; Deb,
2001; Ganguly et al., 2009).
8.4. Design of electric distribution system
The formulation of distribution system expansion problem
considering the practical approach is presented in Vaziri et al.
(2001). In Ramirez-Rosado and Bernal-Agustin (1998), a MOO
strategy based on GA is proposed for the solution of this prob-
lem. A new method based on the SPEA-2, for designing MO
optimum power distribution network has presented in Rivas-
Dávalos and Irving (2005). An evolutionary algorithm based mul-
tiobjective computation for evaluation of distribution system re-
liability while minimizing the network up gradation costs, has
been presented in Ramírez-Rosado and Bernal-Agustín (2001).
MOO technique based on comprehensive learning PSO (CLPSO)is
developed in Ganguly et al. (2009) for planning of electrical
distribution system expansion while considering fault/failure cost
and operational/installation cost. Several other MOEC techniques,
including, NPGA (Mendoza et al., 2006b), SPEA (Mendoza et al.,
2006a) and NSGA are also proposed for multiobjective power
distribution networks. In Carrano et al. (2006), MOGA based on
problem-specific crossover and mutation operators with an ef-
fective variable encoding method is developed for computational
problems in distribution systems. The summary of distribution
system design problems with their technical constraints are listed
below (Bo and Yi-Jia, 2005; Bernal-Agustín, 1998; Benabid and
Boudour, 2007; Basu, 2008; Abido and Bakhashwain, 2005; Ben-
abid and Boudour, 2007; Carrano et al., 2006; Mendoza et al.,
2006b). The main objectives includes
• Maximize reliability index
• Minimize economic cost
Problem constraints:
• Power flow constraints
• Voltage level at load buses
• Feeder and substation capacity limit
8.5. Planning of distributed generation (DG)
In this application, the main aim are optimal allocation and
sizing of new generators while minimizing the cost of energy
purchased, network up gradation, service interruptions and en-
ergy losses (Abido, 2003b,a, 2006b, 2009). DG planning is com-
plex optimization problem which has commercial, environmental
and technical challenges. A review of the state of art proposed
for these type of problems is documented in Khator and Leung
(1997). The MOEA based solution for multiobjective problems
such as the sizing and placement of DG resources into legacy
power system is discussed in Celli et al. (2005). Planning for
photovoltaic systems with several incentive policies provided
by both the national government and utility and is discussed
in Campoccia et al. (2008). The MO solvers like NSGA-II (Ahmadi
et al., 2008) and NSGA (Ochoa et al., 2008) were also designed for
optimal DG placement.
2224 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
9. Advancement of renewable energy sources with the ORPD
The integration of renewable energy sources (RESs) with con-
ventional power system has a substantial impact on economic
operation, security and reliability of the power system due to
which the ORPD with distributed generation (DG) has attained
the focus of research community in recent years. Production of
green energy which strengthen the power supply with least eco-
logical challenges is the core advantage of RES (Robertson et al.,
2020). However, inappropriate placement of such DG sources
(solar and wind) elevates other concerns such as reactive and
active power losses, voltage instability and voltage deviation. In
addition, the penetration of intermittent RESs introduces addi-
tional complexities, nonlinearities, criticalities and uncertainties
in the power system. The uncertainties in the behavior of RESs
are due to dynamic pattern of meteorological data which make
the power flow control more critical while enhancing the threat
of system instability and voltage collapses. For instance, based
on the amount of concentration and percentage of integrated
PV, the variations in irradiance can introduce undesirable voltage
fluctuations while affecting the operation of voltage regulating
devices. Similarly, the volatile behavior of the wind speed affects
the output parameters of the power generating system. Recently,
several studies have been documented the impact of RESs in-
tegration in power system while solving the ORPD problems.
In Naidji and Boudour (2020), the ORPD problems are solved
while considering RESs and load uncertainties. The RESs and UPFC
are integrated to enhance the security of transmission line under
stressed loading in Kavuturu and Narasimham (2020). In Liu
et al. (2020) a robust distributed ORPD model with Wasserstein
distance was developed. A new Jaya algorithm was designed to
solve ORPD with photo voltaic integration in Das et al. (2020).
A two-stage stochastic solution for ORPD with wind uncertainty
was introduced in Saraswat et al. (2020) while levelized cost was
minimized in Li et al. (2020). A consensus-based method was
developed for optimal coordination between grid-side converter
and DFIG stator outputs to reduce wind farm losses in Huang et al.
(2020). In Soares et al. (2020) a coordination between transmis-
sion and distribution system was developed to deal with RESs
uncertainties. In addition, myriads of well-known optimizers are
extended to solve ORPD problems with RESs such as PSO (Mon-
teiro et al., 2020), ε -constraint method (Shojaei et al., 2020),
ADMM method (Huang et al., 2020a) and cone based evolutionary
algorithm (Ferreira et al., 2020). However, the exploration of
fractional swarming/evolutionary strategies in domain of ORPD
in cooperation with RESs needs to investigate for leveraging the
performance of legacy power systems as these mechanisms have
not yet been further explored in energy and power sector.
10. Proposed fractional evolutionary paradigm
All the above mentioned schemes have their own pros and
cons, however the emerging tool of fractional calculus has not
yet been broadly explored and exploited in field of applied sci-
ence and engineering. In this section a new concept of fractional
swarming and evolutionary mechanism has been proposed that
would probably solve optimization problems in all fields of power
sector. Recently, the fractional adaptive methods were effectively
tested in plethora of fields such as in feature selection (Wang
et al., 2018), classification of hyperspectral images (Paliwal et al.,
2017; Ghamisi et al., 2013), image processing (Wang et al., 2019),
design of robot path controllers (Łegowski and Niezabitowski,
2016), parameter adaptation for Kalman filter (Zhu et al., 2014),
power signal (Chaudhary et al., 2020) and electromagnetic plane
wave (Akbar et al., 2019), land-cover monitoring (Yokoya and
Ghamisi, 2016), discrete fractional order filters (Ates et al., 2016)
and localization of optic disk (Guo et al., 2018) . In addition, we
also find applications in designing of PID controllers based AVR
systems (Li et al., 2017), continuous nonlinear observers (Azar
and Serrano, 2018), fractional coupled tank systems (Katal and
Narayan, 2017), non-linear systems identification (Kosari and
Teshnehlab, 2018), nonlinear Box Jenkins modeling (Chaudhary
and Raja, 2015), autoregressive systems (Chaudhary and Raja,
2015) and power stabilizer using GA-PSO (Abdulkhader et al.,
2018). These applications motivates to investigate the integration
of fractional calculus and underlying theories inside the mathe-
matical model of swarming/evolutionary optimization strategies
for designing the solution of diverse optimization problems in
the power sector. Keeping this in mind, in proposed method,
the fractional dynamics of particle has been introduced in the
internal solver of nature inspired swarming strategy specifically
in the structure of PSO. This scheme will combine the strength of
fractional calculus and swarming strategy to create new fractional
variant for better and smoother convergence rate which can
further be extended to all other variant of PSO including firefly,
ant-colony, grass hopper algorithms etc.
10.1. Introduction to FO-DPSO
Evolutionary methodology based on fractional calculus was
proposed by Machado and team (Pires et al., 2010) via explo-
ration of FC tool in traditional DPSO and is known as FO-DPSO
i.e., fractional order DPSO. The derivation of mathematical model
is initialized by considering the Grünwald–Letnikov (GL) general
interpretation of fractional derivative for βϵ C , which is expressed
for signal f(z) as (McBride, 2008):
[ ∞
]
β 1 ∑ (−1)k Γ (β + 1) f (z − kh)
D [f (z)] = lim , (29)
h→0 hβ Γ (k + 1) Γ (β − k + 1)
m=0
Here Γ represents Euler gamma function, β is the fractional order
and h stands for sampling interval. In the proposed study we
consider the discrete time realization
r
1 ∑ (−1)k Γ (β + 1) f (z − kT )
Dβ [f (z)] = , (30)
Tβ Γ (k + 1) Γ (β − k + 1)
m=0
Here r denotes the truncation order and T represents sampling
period. The velocity of conventional PSO scheme is updated for
nth particle by using expression as :
vtn+1 = ωvtn , +ρ1 r1 (LBesttn − xnt ) + ρ2 r2 (GBesttn − xnt ) (31)
where t corresponds to flight index, n represents index of particle
index and x is the particle’s position with corresponding velocity
v. r1 and r2 are uniformly distributed random numbers between
0–1, ρ 1 and ρ 2 are local and global acceleration constants, re-
spectively, GBest is global best particle, LBest is local best particle
while ω is weight of inertia. Using definition of finite difference
and considering ω = 1, we can write
∇ (vtn+1 ) = vtn+1 − vtn = ρ1 r1 (LBesttn − xnt ) + ρ2 r2 (GBesttn − xnt ) (32)
by substituting plain derivative Dβ in place of gradient we have
Dβ (vtn+1 ) = ρ1 r1 (LBesttn − xnt ) + ρ2 r2 (GBesttn − xnt ) (33)
Now using (12) for T = 1, the expression (30) can be written as:
r
(−1)k Γ (β + 1) vtn+1−k
Dβ [vtn+1 ] = vtn+1 +
∑
(34)
Γ (k + 1) Γ (β − k + 1)
k=1
Using (33) in (34), velocity update equation is updated to form
FO-DPSO as:
vtn+1 = ρ1 r1 (LBesttn − xnt ) + ρ2 r2 (GBesttn − xnt )
r
∑ (−1)k Γ (β + 1) vtn+1−k (35)
−
Γ (k + 1) Γ (β − k + 1)
k=1
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229 2225

for nth particle the velocity update equation is given with 1st four 11. Conclusion
orders i.e., r = 4, as:
In this article a comprehensive literature about research tasks
vtn+1 = βvtn + 21 β (1 − β )vtn−1 + 16 β (1 − β )(2 − β )vtn−2 in solving ORPD problems using computational intelligence tool
1
+ 24 β (1 − β )(2 − β )(3 − β )vtn−3 (36) has been presented. The key challenges faced by these tech-
niques in solving ORPD problems are highlighted. At first, details
+φ1 r1 (LBnt − snt ) + φ2 r2 (GBnt − snt ) of solvers for ORPD problems including line loss minimization,
and position update is given as: voltage deviation index minimization, power system stability im-
provement, power system reliability improvement and overall
xnt+1 = xnt + vtn+1 (37) cost minimization has been presented. Then, solutions for ORPD
problems, in IEEE standard test systems incorporating FACTS
It can be seen from expression (36) that the traditional PSO is devices for performance improvement, has been discussed. The
statistical information of authors contribution, year wise pub-
a special scenario of the fractional order DPSO with β = 1.
lications, country wise contribution, percentage of considered
Because, the FO-DPSO integrates the fractional calculus tool to fitness evaluation functions and solvers in ORPD studies has
control the particle convergence, the fractional order β must been presented. The objectives of ORPD, its mathematical model
needs to be defined to ensure a high level of exploration during with corresponding constraints are discussed. In next section,
the solution of the problem. A generic pseudo code of fractional the details about the family of FACTS, mathematical model SVC,
evolutionary algorithm (F0-DPSO) is provided in Algorithm 1, TCSC, and their influence on ORPD has been discussed. A sur-
vey of ORPD problems in context of electricity market has been
while additional literature of basic FO-DPSO can be seen in Or-
discussed to establish the importance of ORPD studies. The im-
tigueira and Machado (2015), De Oliveira and Machado (2014),
portance of MOO in energy and power sector is highlighted
McBride (2008), Davison and Essex (1998), Couceiro et al. (2012). and related applications are discussed. At the end, the authors
have proposed a mathematical tool for design of new computing
Algorithm 1: Fractional Evolutionary Algorithm. paradigm based on fractional calculus and pointed some of the
potential application areas in science and engineering sector for
1: procedure In steps with input and outputs
future research direction.
2: Inputs: Acceleration coefficients, particle number, inertia
The concept of fractional calculus can be integrated in all vari-
weights
ants of traditional PSO and other modern optimization algorithms
3: Output: Global best particle
such as ant colony, ant lion, fire fly, grasshopper algorithms
4: Start of Fractional Evolutionary Algorithm (e.g. Darwinian
to form their fractional variants and improve their convergence
PSO)
rate in different applications such as ORPD, parameter estima-
5: Initialization: velocity v , position x for all groups s
tion (Raja et al., 2018), inductor motor modeling (Ahmad et al.,
6: Group (smaller swarm) Evolution: Repeat until stopping
criteria 2018), thermodynamics study (Ahmad et al., 2017), nonlinear
systems (Raja et al., 2019), electric circuits (Mehmood et al.,
• For all groups Call: Swarm evolution 2019), electromagnets (Akbar et al., 2019), magnetohydrodynam-
ics (Mehmood et al., 2018), prey predator models (Umar et al.,
– Let each s to spawn new offspring
2019), heat transfer /transport model (Ahmad et al., 2019) etc.
– If (group=failed), then delete the group
Furthermore, these techniques can further be integrated with
• End other local search techniques to develop hybrid solutions for op-
timization problems in energy and other engineering sectors. Be-
7: Termination criterion: Predefined iteration, stagnation, con-
sides many advantages, fractional swarming/evolutionary strate-
vergence
gies suffer from certain disadvantages such as memory complex-
8: End Fractional Evolutionary Algorithm
ity, dependency on fractional coefficient and trapping in subop-
• Function (Swarm Evolution) Repeat (1-3) for all timal solution. One may consider a possible solution to avoid
particles n suboptimal solution that is the integration of entropy diversity
in the fractional order meta heuristics. The synergy of entropy
1. Fitness evaluation: Evaluate fitness for adopted metric inside the mathematical model of optimizer is gaining
objective interest of research community by providing considerable avoid-
2. Updating mechanism: for all particles ance form premature convergence in recent years but still need
– Update Lbest, gbest and pbest to be explored further. These potential solutions of optimization
– Update velocity as: problems are the motivations to design robust, alternate, stable
and reliable algorithms and apply in all fields of science and
vtn+1 = βvtn + 21 β (1 − β )vtn−1
engineering problems.
+ 16 β (1 − β )(2 − β )vtn−2
+ 241
β (1 − β )(2 − β )(3 − β )vtn−3
+φ1 r1 (LBnt − snt ) + φ2 r2 (GBnt − snt ) Declaration of competing interest

– Update position as:

xnt+1 = xnt + vtn+1
3. Punish-Reward: If s improves then reward group
i.e. increase group life else punish group i.e.
reduce group life or delete particle
• Return
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant No. 51977153, 51977161,
2226 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
51577046, State Key Program of National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grant No. 51637004, National Key Research
and Development Plan (China) ‘‘important scientific instruments
and equipment development’’ Grant No. 2016YFF010220, Equip-
ment research project in advance (China) Grant No. 41402040301.
References
Abdel-Moamen, M., Padhy, N.P., 2003. Optimal power flow incorporating FACTS
devices-bibliography and survey. In: 2003 IEEE PES Transmission and Dis-
tribution Conference and Exposition (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37495), vol. 2. IEEE,
pp. 669–676.
Abdulkhader, H.K., Jacob, J., Mathew, A.T., 2018. Fractional-order lead-lag
compensator-based multi-band power system stabiliser design using a
hybrid dynamic GA-PSO algorithm. IET Gener. Transm. Dist. 12 (13),
3248–3260.
Abido, M.A., 2002. Optimal power flow using tabu search algorithm. Electr.
Power Compon. Syst. 30 (5), 469–483.
Abido, M.A., 2003a. A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective en-
vironmental/economic dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 25 (2),
97–105.
Abido, M.A., 2003b. Environmental/economic power dispatch using multiob-
jective evolutionary algorithms. In: 2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society
General Meeting (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37491), vol. 2. IEEE, pp. 920–925.
Abido, M.A., 2006. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for electric power
dispatch problem. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10 (3), 315–329.
Abido, M.A., 2006b. Multiobjective optimal VAR dispatch using strength
pareto evolutionary algorithm. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on
Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, pp. 730–736.
Abido, M., 2009. Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for environ-
mental/economic dispatch problem. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 79 (7),
1105–1113.
Abido, M., Al-Ali, N., 2012. Multi-objective optimal power flow using differential
evolution. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 37 (4), 991–1005.
Abido, M.A., Bakhashwain, J.M., 2005. Optimal VAR dispatch using a multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 27 (1),
13–20.
Abril, I.P., Quintero, J.A.G., 2003. VAR Compensation by sequential quadratic
programming. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 18 (1), 36–41.
Acha, E., Ambriz-Perez, H., Fuerte-Esquivel, C.R., 2000. Advanced transformer
control modeling in an optimal power flow using Newton’s method. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 15 (1), 290–298.
Ahmad, I., Ahmad, F., Raja, M.A.Z., Ilyas, H., Anwar, N., Azad, Z., 2018. Intelligent
computing to solve fifth-order boundary value problem arising in induction
motor models. Neural Comput. Appl. 29 (7), 449–466.
Ahmad, I., Ilyas, H., Urooj, A., Aslam, M.S., Shoaib, M., Raja, M.A.Z., 2019. Novel
applications of intelligent computing paradigms for the analysis of nonlinear
reactive transport model of the fluid in soft tissues and microvessels. Neural
Comput. Appl. 31 (12), 9041–9059.
Ahmad, I., Raja, M.A.Z., Bilal, M., Ashraf, F., 2017. Neural network methods to
solve the Lane–Emden type equations arising in thermodynamic studies of
the spherical gas cloud model. Neural Comput. Appl. 28 (1), 929–944.
Ahmadi, M., Yousefi, A., Soroudi, A., Ehsan, M., 2008. Multi objective distributed
generation planning using NSGA-II. In: 2008 13th International Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conference. IEEE, pp. 1847–1851.
Akbar, S., Zaman, F., Asif, M., Rehman, A.U., Raja, M.A.Z., 2019. Novel application
of FO-DPSO for 2-d parameter estimation of electromagnetic plane waves.
Neural Comput. Appl. 31 (8), 3681–3690.
AlRashidi, M.R., El-Hawary, M.E., 2009. Applications of computational intelligence
techniques for solving the revived optimal power flow problem. Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 79 (4), 694–702.
Amrane, Y., Boudour, M., Belazzoug, M., 2015. A new optimal reactive power
planning based on differential search algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 64, 551–561.
Antunes, C.H., Pires, D.F., Barrico, C., Gomes, A., Martins, A.G., 2009. A
multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for reactive power compensation in
distribution networks. Appl. Energy 86 (7–8), 977–984.
Aoki, K., Fan, M., Nishikori, A., 1988. Optimal VAR planning by approximation
method for recursive mixed-integer linear programming. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 3 (4), 1741–1747.
Arya, L.D., Titare, L.S., Kothari, D.P., 2010. Improved particle swarm optimization
applied to reactive power reserve maximization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 32 (5), 368–374.
Ates, A., Kavuran, G., Alagoz, B.B., Yeroglu, C., 2016. Improvement of IIR filter
discretization for fractional order filter by discrete stochastic optimization.
In: 2016 39th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal
Processing (TSP). IEEE, pp. 583–586.
Attaviriyanupap, P., Kita, H., Tanaka, E., Hasegawa, J., 2005. New bidding strategy
formulation for day-ahead energy and reserve markets based on evolutionary
programming. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 27 (3), 157–167.
Awad, N.H., Ali, M.Z., Mallipeddi, R., Suganthan, P.N., 2019. An efficient differ-
ential evolution algorithm for stochastic OPF based active–reactive power
dispatch problem considering renewable generators. Appl. Soft Comput. 76,
445–458.
Ayan, K., Kılıç, U., 2012. Artificial bee colony algorithm solution for optimal
reactive power flow. Appl. Soft Comput. 12 (5), 1477–1482.
Azar, A.T., Serrano, F.E., 2018. Fractional order sliding mode PID con-
troller/observer for continuous nonlinear switched systems with PSO pa-
rameter tuning. In: International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning
Technologies and Applications. Springer, pp. 13–22.
Bakirtzis, A.G., Biskas, P.N., Zoumas, C.E., Petridis, V., 2002. Optimal power flow
by enhanced genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 17 (2), 229–236.
Basu, M., 2008. Dynamic economic emission dispatch using nondominated
sorting genetic algorithm-II. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 30 (2), 140–149.
Baughman, M.L., Siddiqi, S.N., 1991. Real-time pricing of reactive power: theory
and case study results. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 6 (1), 23–29.
Belati, E.A., Nascimento, C.F., de Faria, H., Watanabe, E.H., Padilha-Feltrin, A.,
2019. Allocation of static var compensator in electric power systems
considering different load levels. J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 30 (1), 1–8.
Benabid, R., Boudour, M., 2007. Optimal location and size of SVC and TCSC for
multi-objective static voltage stability enhancement. In: Proceeding of the
International Conference on Renewable Energy and Power Systems Quality,
ICREPQ, vol. 2008.
Berizzi, A., Delfanti, M., Marannino, P., Pasquadibisceglie, M.S., Silvestri, A., 2005.
Enhanced security-constrained OPF with FACTS devices. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 20 (3), 1597–1605.
Bernal-Agustín, J., 1998. Application of genetic algorithms to the optimal design
of power distribution systems (Ph. D. dissertation). Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ.
Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Bhattacharya, A., Chattopadhyay, P.K., 2010. Biogeography-based optimization
for solution of optimal power flow problem. In: ECTI-CON2010: The 2010
ECTI International Confernce on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,
Telecommunications and Information Technology. IEEE, pp. 435–439.
Bhattacharyya, B., Gupta, V.K., 2014. Fuzzy based evolutionary algorithm for
reactive power optimization with FACTS devices. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 61, 39–47.
Bhattacharyya, B., Kumar, S., 2016. Loadability enhancement with FACTS devices
using gravitational search algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 78,
470–479.
Bhattacharyya, B., Raj, S., 2016. Swarm intelligence based algorithms for reactive
power planning with flexible AC transmission system devices. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 78, 158–164.
Biswas, S., Mandal, K.K., Chakraborty, N., 2016. Pareto-Efficient double auction
power transactions for economic reactive power dispatch. Appl. Energy 168,
610–627.
Biswas, P.P., Suganthan, P.N., Mallipeddi, R., Amaratunga, G.A.J., 2019. Optimal
reactive power dispatch with uncertainties in load demand and renewable
energy sources adopting scenario-based approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 75,
616–632.
Bo, Z., Yi-Jia, C., 2005. Multiple objective particle swarm optimization technique
for economic load dispatch. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 6 (5), 420–427.
Campoccia, A., Sanseverino, E.R., Zizzo, G., 2008. Optimal sizing and siting
of distributed energy resources considering public and private incentive
policies. In: International Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other
Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems. Springer, pp. 570–579.
Carrano, E.G., Soares, L.A.E., Takahashi, R.H.C., Saldanha, R.R., Neto, O.M., 2006.
Electric distribution network multiobjective design using a problem-specific
genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 21 (2), 995–1005.
Celli, G., Ghiani, E., Mocci, S., Pilo, F., 2005. A multiobjective evolutionary
algorithm for the sizing and siting of distributed generation. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 20 (2), 750–757.
Chattopadhyay, D., Bhattacharya, K., Parikh, J., 1995. Optimal reactive power
planning and its spot-pricing: an integrated approach. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 10 (4), 2014–2020.
Chaudhary, N.I., Latif, R., Raja, M.A.Z., Machado, J.A.T., 2020. An innovative
fractional order LMS algorithm for power signal parameter estimation. Appl.
Math. Model..
Chaudhary, N.I., Raja, M.A.Z., 2015. Design of fractional adaptive strategy for
input nonlinear Box–Jenkins systems. Signal Process. 116, 141–151.
Chen, G., Liu, L., Zhang, Z., Huang, S., 2017. Optimal reactive power dispatch
by improved GSA-based algorithm with the novel strategies to handle
constraints. Appl. Soft Comput. 50, 58–70.
Chung, T.S., Li, K.K., Chen, G.J., Xie, J.D., Tang, G.Q., 2003. Multi-objective
transmission network planning by a hybrid GA approach with fuzzy decision
analysis. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 25 (3), 187–192.
Coello, C.A.C., Lamont, G.B., Van Veldhuizen, D.A., et al., 2007. Evolutionary
Algorithms for Solving Multi-objective Problems, vol. 5. Springer.
Couceiro, M.S., Rocha, R.P., Ferreira, N.M.F., Machado, J.A.T., 2012. Introducing the
fractional-order Darwinian PSO. Signal Image Video Process. 6 (3), 343–350.
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., 2009a. Reactive power dispatch considering
voltage stability with seeker optimization algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
79 (10), 1462–1471.
Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., 2009b. Seeker optimization algorithm for
optimal reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24 (3), 1218–1231.
Das, D.B., Patvardhan, C., 1998a. New multi-objective stochastic search technique
for economic load dispatch. IEE Proc., Gener. Transm. Distrib. 145 (6),
747–752.
Das, D.B., Patvardhan, C., 1998b. New multi-objective stochastic search technique
for economic load dispatch. IEE Proc., Gener. Transm. Distrib. 145 (6),
747–752.
Das, T., Roy, R., Mandal, K.K., Mondal, S., Mondal, S., Hait, P., Das, M.K.,
2020. Optimal reactive power dispatch incorporating solar power using jaya
algorithm. In: Computational Advancement in Communication Circuits and
Systems. Springer, pp. 37–48.
Davison, M., Essex, C., 1998. Fractional differential equations and initial value
problems. Math. Sci. 23 (2), 108–116.
De Oliveira, E.C., Machado, J.A.T., 2014. A review of definition for fractional
derivatives ans integral, math. Probl. Eng..
Deb, K., 2001. Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, vol.
16. John Wiley & Sons.
Deeb, N.I., Shahidehpour, S.M., 1988. An efficient technique for reactive power
dispatch using a revised linear programming approach. Electr. Power Syst.
Res. 15 (2), 121–134.
Duman, S., Güvenç, U., Sönmez, Y., Yörükeren, N., 2012. Optimal power flow
using gravitational search algorithm. Energy Convers. Manage. 59, 86–95.
Duong, T.L., Duong, M.Q., Phan, V.-D., Nguyen, T.T., 2020. Optimal reactive
power flow for large-scale power systems using an effective metaheuristic
algorithm. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2020.
Durairaj, S., Kannan, P.S., Devaraj, D., 2005. Application of genetic algorithm
to optimal reactive power dispatch including voltage stability constraint. J.
Energy Environ. 4 (63), 7.
Dutta, S., Paul, S., Roy, P.K., 2018. Optimal allocation of SVC and TCSC using
quasi-oppositional chemical reaction optimization for solving multi-objective
ORPD problem. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 5 (1), 83–98.
Eghbal, M., Yorino, N., Zoka, Y., El-Araby, E.E., 2009. Application of multi-
objective evolutionary optimization algorithms to reactive power planning
problem. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 4 (5), 625–632.
El Ela, A.A.A., Abido, M.A., Spea, S.R., 2011. Differential evolution algorithm for
optimal reactive power dispatch. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 81 (2), 458–464.
El-Ela, A.A.A., Kinawy, A.M., El-Sehiemy, R.A., Mouwafi, M.T., 2011. Optimal
reactive power dispatch using ant colony optimization algorithm. Electr. Eng.
93 (2), 103–116.
Ettappan, M., Vimala, V., Ramesh, S., Kesavan, V.T., 2020. Optimal reactive power
dispatch for real power loss minimization and voltage stability enhancement
using artificial bee colony algorithm. Microprocess. Microsyst. 103085.
Ferreira, W.M., Meneghini, I.R., Brandao, D.I., Guimarães, F.G., 2020. Preference
cone based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to optimal management
of distribuited energy resources in microgrids. Appl. Energy 274, 115326.
Ganguly, S., Sahoo, N.C., Das, D., 2009. Multi-objective expansion planning
of electrical distribution networks using comprehensive learning particle
swarm optimization. In: Applications of Soft Computing. Springer, pp.
193–202.
Garver, L.L., 1970. Transmission network estimation using linear programming.
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. (7), 1688–1697.
Gayatri, M.T.L., Parimi, A.M., Kumar, A.V.P., 2018. A review of reactive power
compensation techniques in microgrids. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81,
1030–1036.
Gerbex, S., Cherkaoui, R., Germond, A.J., 2001. Optimal location of multi-type
FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 16 (3), 537–544.
Ghaedi, S., Tousi, B., Abbasi, M., Alilou, M., 2020. Optimal placement and sizing
of TCSC for improving the voltage and economic indices of system with
stochastic load model. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 2050217.
Ghamisi, P., Couceiro, M.S., Benediktsson, J.A., 2013. Classification of hyper-
spectral images with binary fractional order darwinian PSO and random
forests. In: Image and Signal Processing for Remote Sensing XIX, vol. 8892.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, p. 88920S.
Ghasemi, M., Ghanbarian, M.M., Ghavidel, S., Rahmani, S., Moghaddam, E.M.,
2014a. Modified teaching learning algorithm and double differential evolu-
tion algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch problem: a comparative
study. Inform. Sci. 278, 231–249.
Ghasemi, M., Ghavidel, S., Ghanbarian, M.M., Habibi, A., 2014b. A new hybrid
algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch problem with discrete and
continuous control variables. Appl. Soft Comput. 22, 126–140.
Gopalakrishnan, V., Thirunavukkarasu, P., Prasanna, R., 2004. Reactive power
planning using hybrid evolutionary programming method. In: IEEE PES
Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2004. IEEE, pp. 1319–1323.
Granville, S., 1994. Optimal reactive dispatch through interior point methods.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9 (1), 136–146.
2227
Guo, F., Peng, H., Zou, B., Zhao, R., Liu, X., 2018. Localisation and segmentation of
optic disc with the fractional-order darwinian particle swarm optimisation
algorithm. IET Image Process. 12 (8), 1303–1312.
Han, Y., Lv, G., Mokaramian, E., 2020. A review modeling of optimal location
and sizing integrated M–FACTS with wind farm and fuel cell. J. Cleaner Prod.
121726.
Hazra, J., Sinha, A.K., 2007. Congestion management using multiobjective particle
swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (4), 1726–1734.
Heidari, A.A., Abbaspour, R.A., Jordehi, A.R., 2017. GaussIan bare-bones water
cycle algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch in electrical power
systems. Appl. Soft Comput. 57, 657–671.
Huang, S., Gong, Y., Wu, Q., Rong, F., 2020a. Two-tier combined active and
reactive power controls for VSC–HVDC-connected large-scale wind farm
cluster based on ADMM. IET Renew. Power Gener. 14 (8), 1379–1386.
Huang, C.-M., Huang, Y.-C., 2012. Combined differential evolution algorithm
and ant system for optimal reactive power dispatch. Energy Procedia 14,
1238–1243.
Huang, S., Li, P., Wu, Q., Li, F., Rong, F., 2020. ADMM-Based distributed optimal
reactive power control for loss minimization of DFIG-based wind farms. Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 118, 105827.
Huang, C.-M., Yang, H.-T., Huang, C.-L., 1997. Bi-objective power dispatch using
fuzzy satisfaction-maximizing decision approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12
(4), 1715–1721.
Jabr, R.A., Martins, N., Pal, B.C., Karaki, S., 2011. Contingency constrained VAr
planning using penalty successive conic programming. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 27 (1), 545–553.
Kanagasabai, L., 2020. Solving optimal reactive power problem by Alaskan Moose
Hunting, Larus Livens and Green Lourie Swarm Optimization Algorithms. Ain
Shams Eng. J..
Kansal, V., Dhillon, J.S., 2020. Emended salp swarm algorithm for multiobjective
electric power dispatch problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 90, 106172.
Katal, N., Narayan, S., 2017. Design of robust fractional order PID controllers for
coupled tank systems using multi-objective particle swarm optimisation. Int.
J. Syst. Control Commun. 8 (3), 250–267.
Kavuturu, K.V.K., Narasimham, P.V.R.L., 2020. Transmission security enhancement
under (n- 1) contingency conditions with optimal unified power flow
controller and renewable energy sources generation. J. Electr. Eng. Technol.
1–14.
Khator, S.K., Leung, L.C., 1997. Power distribution planning: A review of models
and issues. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12 (3), 1151–1159.
Khazali, A.H., Kalantar, M., 2011. Optimal reactive power dispatch based on
harmony search algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33 (3), 684–692.
Kheirizad, I., Mohammadi, A., Varahram, M.H., 2008. A novel algorithm for
optimal location of FACTS devices in power system planning. J. Electr. Eng.
Technol. 3 (2), 177–183.
Kim, H.-J., Ra, I.-H., et al., 2020. Optimal sizing and location identification of
suitable compensator in a radial distribution network through fuzzy-flower
pollination optimization algorithm. In: 2020 International Conference on
Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT). IEEE, pp. 576–583.
King, R.T., Rughooputh, H.C., Deb, K., 2006. Stochastic evolutionary multiobjective
environmental/economic dispatch. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on
Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, pp. 946–953.
Kirschen, D.S., Van Meeteren, H.P., 1988. MW/voltage Control in a linear
programming based optimal power flow. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 3 (2),
481–489.
Kosari, M., Teshnehlab, M., 2018. Non-linear fractional-order chaotic systems
identification with approximated fractional-order derivative based on a
hybrid particle swarm optimization-genetic algorithm method. J. AI Data
Min. 6 (2), 365–373.
Koski, J., 1985. Defectiveness of weighting method in multicriterion optimization
of structures. Commun. Appl. Numer. Methods 1 (6), 333–337.
Coronado de Koster, O.A., Domínguez-Navarro, J.A., 2020. Multi-objective tabu
search for the location and sizing of multiple types of FACTS and DG in
electrical networks. Energies 13 (11), 2722.
Krami, N., El-Sharkawi, M.A., Akherraz, M., 2008. Pareto Multiobjective optimiza-
tion technique for reactive power planning. In: 2008 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting-Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the
21st Century. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Kumar, S.K.N., Renuga, P., 2009. Reactive power planning using differential
evolution: comparison with real GA and evolutionary programming. Int. J.
Recent Trends Eng. 2 (5), 130.
Laifa, A., Boudour, M., 2008. FACTS Allocation for power systems voltage stability
enhancement using MOPSO. In: 2008 5th International Multi-Conference on
Systems, Signals and Devices. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Latorre, G., Cruz, R.D., Areiza, J.M., Villegas, A., 2003. Classification of publications
and models on transmission expansion planning. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 18
(2), 938–946.
Le, K., Golden, J., Stansberry, C., Vice, R., Wood, J., Ballance, J., Brown, G.,
Kamya, J., Nielsen, E., Nakajima, H., et al., 1995. Potential impacts of clean air
regulations on system operations. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (2), 647–656.
2228 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
Lee, K.Y., El-Sharkawi, M.A., 2008. Modern Heuristic Optimization Techniques:
Theory and Applications to Power Systems, vol. 39. John Wiley & Sons.
Łegowski, A., Niezabitowski, M., 2016. Robot path control based on PSO with
fractional-order velocity. In: 2016 International Conference on Robotics and
Automation Engineering (ICRAE). IEEE, pp. 21–25.
Lenin, K., 2020a. Enhanced wormhole optimizer algorithm for solving optimal
reactive power problem. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. 9 (1), 1–8.
Lenin, K., 2020b. Real power loss reduction by amplified water cycle algorithm.
J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2 (1), 79–87.
Lenin, K., Reddy, B.R., Kalavathi, M.S., 2014. Water cycle algorithm for solving
optimal reactive power dispatch problem. J. Eng. Technol. Res. 2 (2), 1–11.
Li, F., Pilgrim, J.D., Dabeedin, C., Chebbo, A., Aggarwal, R.K., 2005. Genetic
algorithms for optimal reactive power compensation on the national grid
system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (1), 493–500.
Li, X., Wang, Y., Li, N., Han, M., Tang, Y., Liu, F., 2017. Optimal fractional order PID
controller design for automatic voltage regulator system based on reference
model using particle swarm optimization. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 8 (5),
1595–1605.
Li, J., Wang, N., Zhou, D., Hu, W., Huang, Q., Chen, Z., Blaabjerg, F., 2020. Optimal
reactive power dispatch of permanent magnet synchronous generator-
based wind farm considering levelised production cost minimisation. Renew.
Energy 145, 1–12.
Lin, S.-S., Horng, S.-C., et al., 2012. Iterative simulation optimization approach for
optimal volt-ampere reactive sources planning. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 43 (1), 984–991.
Liu, J., Chen, Y., Duan, C., Lin, J., Lyu, J., 2020. Distributionally robust optimal
reactive power dispatch with wasserstein distance in active distribution
network. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 8 (3), 426–436.
Lo, K.L., Zhu, S.P., 1991. A decoupled quadratic programming approach for
optimal power dispatch. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 22 (1), 47–60.
Maciel, R., Padilha-Feltrin, A., 2009. Distributed generation impact evaluation
using a multi-objective tabu search. In: 2009 15th International Conference
on Intelligent System Applications To Power Systems. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Maghouli, P., Hosseini, S.H., Buygi, M.O., Shahidehpour, M., 2009. A multi-
objective framework for transmission expansion planning in deregulated
environments. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24 (2), 1051–1061.
Mahadevan, K., Kannan, P.S., 2010. Comprehensive learning particle swarm
optimization for reactive power dispatch. Appl. Soft Comput. 10 (2), 641–652.
Mahmoudabadi, A., Rashidinejad, M., 2013. An application of hybrid heuristic
method to solve concurrent transmission network expansion and reactive
power planning. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 45 (1), 71–77.
Mandal, B., Roy, P.K., 2013. Optimal reactive power dispatch using quasi-
oppositional teaching learning based optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 53, 123–134.
McBride, A., 2008. Advances in Fractional Calculus: Theoretical Developments
and Applications in Physics and Engineering. JSTOR.
Mehdinejad, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Dadashzadeh-Bonab, R., Zare, K., 2016.
Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch of power systems using hybrid
particle swarm optimization and imperialist competitive algorithms. Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 83, 104–116.
Mehmood, A., Zameer, A., Ling, S.H., ur Rehman, A., Raja, M.A.Z., 2019. In-
tegrated computational intelligent paradigm for nonlinear electric circuit
models using neural networks, genetic algorithms and sequential quadratic
programming. Neural Comput. Appl. 1–21.
Mehmood, A., Zameer, A., Raja, M.A.Z., 2018. Intelligent computing to analyze
the dynamics of magnetohydrodynamic flow over stretchable rotating disk
model. Appl. Soft Comput. 67, 8–28.
Mei, R.N.S., Sulaiman, M.H., Mustaffa, Z., Daniyal, H., 2017. Optimal reactive
power dispatch solution by loss minimization using moth-flame optimization
technique. Appl. Soft Comput. 59, 210–222.
Mendoza, F., Bernal-Agustin, J.L., Domínguez-Navarro, J.A., 2006a. NSGA And
SPEA applied to multiobjective design of power distribution systems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 21 (4), 1938–1945.
Mendoza, F., García, A., Bemal-Agustin, J.L., 2006b. Application of the NPGA to
the design of power distribution systems. In: 2006 IEEE/PES Transmission &
Distribution Conference and Exposition: Latin America. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Milosevic, B., Begovic, M., 2003. Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for
optimal phasor measurement placement. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 18 (1),
69–75.
Mollazei, S., Farsangi, M.M., Nezamabadi-pour, H., Lee, K.Y., 2007. Multi-objective
optimization of power system performance with tcsc using the MOPSO
algorithm. In: 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting. IEEE,
pp. 1–8.
Monteiro, M.R., Rodrigues, Y.R., de Souza, A.C.Z., Ribeiro, P.F., 2020. Particle
swarm optimization applied to reactive power dispatch considering renew-
able generation. In: Decision Making Applications in Modern Power Systems.
Elsevier, pp. 247–267.
Mugemanyi, S., Qu, Z., Rugema, F.X., Dong, Y., Bananeza, C., Wang, L., 2020.
Optimal reactive power dispatch using chaotic bat algorithm. IEEE Access 8,
65830–65867.
Muhammad, Y., Khan, R., Raja, M.A.Z., Ullah, F., Chaudhary, N.I., He, Y., 2020.
Design of fractional swarm intelligent computing with entropy evolution for
optimal power flow problems. IEEE Access 8, 111401–111419.
Muhammad, Y., Khan, R., Ullah, F., ur Rehman, A., Aslam, M.S., Raja, M.A.Z., 2019.
Design of fractional swarming strategy for solution of optimal reactive power
dispatch. Neural Comput. Appl. 1–18.
Mukherjee, A., Mukherjee, V., 2015. Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch
by chaotic krill herd algorithm. IET Gener. Transm. Dist. 9 (15), 2351–2362.
Mukherjee, A., Mukherjee, V., 2016. Chaotic krill herd algorithm for optimal
reactive power dispatch considering FACTS devices. Appl. Soft Comput. 44,
163–190.
Nadeem, M., Imran, K., Khattak, A., Ulasyar, A., Pal, A., Zeb, M.Z., Khan, A.N., Pad-
hee, M., 2020. Optimal placement, sizing and coordination of FACTS devices
in transmission network using whale optimization algorithm. Energies 13
(3), 753.
Naderi, E., Pourakbari-Kasmaei, M., Abdi, H., 2019. An efficient particle swarm
optimization algorithm to solve optimal power flow problem integrated with
FACTS devices. Appl. Soft Comput. 80, 243–262.
Naidji, M., Boudour, M., 2020. Stochastic multi-objective optimal reactive power
dispatch considering load and renewable energy sources uncertainties: a case
study of the adrar isolated power system. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 30
(6), e12374.
Ochoa, L.F., Padilha-Feltrin, A., Harrison, G.P., 2008. Time-series-based maximiza-
tion of distributed wind power generation integration. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 23 (3), 968–974.
Ortigueira, M.D., Machado, J.A.T., 2015. What is a fractional derivative? J. Comput.
Phys. 293, 4–13.
Osman, M.S., Abo-Sinna, M.A., Mousa, A.A., 2004. A solution to the optimal power
flow using genetic algorithm. Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2), 391–405.
Pal, B.B., Biswas, P., Mukhopadhyay, A., 2013. GA Based FGP approach for optimal
reactive power dispatch. Proc. Technol. 10, 464–473.
Paliwal, K.K., Singh, S., Gaba, P., 2017. Feature selection approach of hyperspec-
tral image using GSA-FODPSO-SVM. In: 2017 International Conference on
Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA). IEEE, pp. 1070–1075.
Panthagani, P., Rao, R.S., 2020. Pareto-Based allocations of multi-type flexible
AC transmission system devices for optimal reactive power dispatch us-
ing kinetic gas molecule optimization algorithm. Meas. Control 53 (1–2),
239–249.
Parastvand, H., Bass, O., Masoum, M.A., Chapman, A., Lachowicz, S., 2020. Cyber-
security constrained placement of FACTS devices in power networks from a
novel topological perspective. IEEE Access.
Pati, B., Karajgi, S.B., 2020. Optimized placement of multiple FACTS devices using
PSO and CSA algorithms. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. (2088-8708) 10.
Pindoriya, N., Singh, S., 2009. MOPSO Based day-ahead optimal self-scheduling of
generators under electricity price forecast uncertainty. In: 2009 IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Pindoriya, N., Singh, S., Lee, K.Y., 2010. A comprehensive survey on multi-
objective evolutionary optimization in power system applications. In: IEEE
PES General Meeting. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Pires, E.J.S., Machado, J.A.T., de Moura Oliveira, P.B., Cunha, J.B., Mendes, L., 2010.
Particle swarm optimization with fractional-order velocity. Nonlinear Dynam.
61 (1–2), 295–301.
Pires, D.F., Martins, A.G., Antunes, C.H., 2005. A multiobjective model for var
planning in radial distribution networks based on tabu search. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 20 (2), 1089–1094.
Raj, S., Bhattacharyya, B., 2018. Optimal placement of TCSC and SVC for reactive
power planning using whale optimization algorithm. Swarm Evol. Comput.
40, 131–143.
Raja, M.A.Z., Mehmood, J., Sabir, Z., Nasab, A.K., Manzar, M.A., 2019. Numerical
solution of doubly singular nonlinear systems using neural networks-based
integrated intelligent computing. Neural Comput. Appl. 31 (3), 793–812.
Raja, M.A.Z., Shah, A.A., Mehmood, A., Chaudhary, N.I., Aslam, M.S., 2018. Bio-
inspired computational heuristics for parameter estimation of nonlinear
hammerstein controlled autoregressive system. Neural Comput. Appl. 29
(12), 1455–1474.
Rajan, A., Jeevan, K., Malakar, T., 2017. Weighted elitism based ant lion optimizer
to solve optimum VAr planning problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 55, 352–370.
Rajan, A., Malakar, T., 2015. Optimal reactive power dispatch using hybrid
Nelder–Mead simplex based firefly algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 66, 9–24.
Rajkumar, P., 2010. Application of particle swarm optimization technique for
reactive power optimization problem.
Ramirez-Rosado, I.J., Bernal-Agustin, J.L., 1998. Genetic algorithms applied to the
design of large power distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13 (2),
696–703.
Ramírez-Rosado, I.J., Bernal-Agustín, J.L., 2001. Reliability and costs optimization
for distribution networks expansion using an evolutionary algorithm. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 16 (1), 111–118.
Rao, S.S., 2019. Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice. John Wiley &
Sons.
 Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M.A.Z. Raja et al. / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 2211–2229
Rivas-Dávalos, F., Irving, M.R., 2005. An approach based on the strength pareto
evolutionary algorithm 2 for power distribution system planning. In: Inter-
national Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Springer,
pp. 707–720.
Robertson, B., Bekker, J., Buckham, B., 2020. Renewable integration for remote
communities: Comparative allowable cost analyses for hydro, solar and wave
energy. Appl. Energy 264, 114677.
Saddique, M.S., Bhatti, A.R., Haroon, S.S., Sattar, M.K., Amin, S., Sajjad, I.A.,
ul Haq, S.S., Awan, A.B., Rasheed, N., 2020. Solution to optimal reactive power
dispatch in transmission system using meta-heuristic techniques?status and
technological review. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 178, 106031.
Sakr, W.S., El-Sehiemy, R.A., Azmy, A.M., 2017. Adaptive differential evolution
algorithm for efficient reactive power management. Appl. Soft Comput. 53,
336–351.
Salkuti, S.R., 2019. Optimal power flow based congestion management using
enhanced genetic algorithms. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 9 (2), 875.
Sang, Y., Sahraei-Ardakani, M., 2019. Effective power flow control via distributed
FACTS considering future uncertainties. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 168, 127–136.
Saraswat, A., Ucheniya, R., Gupta, Y., 2020. Two-stage stochastic optimization for
reactive power dispatch with wind power uncertainties. In: 2020 Interna-
tional Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management
(ICCAKM). IEEE, pp. 332–337.
Sayah, S., 2018. Modified differential evolution approach for practical optimal
reactive power dispatch of hybrid AC–DC power systems. Appl. Soft Comput.
73, 591–606.
Shaheen, A.M., Spea, S.R., Farrag, S.M., Abido, M.A., 2018. A review of meta-
heuristic algorithms for reactive power planning problem. Ain Shams Eng. J.
9 (2), 215–231.
Shareef, S.K.M., Rao, R.S., 2018. Optimal reactive power dispatch under unbal-
anced conditions using hybrid swarm intelligence. Comput. Electr. Eng. 69,
183–193.
Sharma, S., Ghosh, S., 2020. FIS And hybrid ABC-pso based optimal capacitor
placement and sizing for radial distribution networks. J. Ambient Intell.
Humaniz. Comput. 11 (2), 901–916.
Shaw, B., Mukherjee, V., Ghoshal, S.P., 2014. Solution of reactive power dispatch
of power systems by an opposition-based gravitational search algorithm. Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 55, 29–40.
Shayeghi, H., Alilou, M., Tousi, B., 2020. FACTS Device allocation in the presence
of demand response program. In: Demand Response Application in Smart
Grids. Springer, pp. 253–274.
Sheng, S., Li, J., 2008. Study of reactive power optimization based on artificial
immune ant colony algorithm. In: 2008 Third International Conference on
Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies. IEEE,
pp. 2311–2315.
Shojaei, A.H., Ghadimi, A.A., Miveh, M.R., Mohammadi, F., Jurado, F., 2020. Multi-
objective optimal reactive power planning under load demand and wind
power generation uncertainties using ε -constraint method. Appl. Sci. 10 (8),
2859.
Shojaei, A.A., et al., 2020b. Placement and quantitating of FACTS devices in
a power system including the wind unit to enhance system parameters.
Tehnički Glasnik 14 (2), 154–161.
Shrestha, G.B., Fonseka, P.A.J., 2004. Congestion-driven transmission expansion
in competitive power markets. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19 (3), 1658–1665.
Sinsuphan, N., Leeton, U., Kulworawanichpong, T., 2013. Optimal power flow
solution using improved harmony search method. Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (5),
2364–2374.
Small, S.M., Jeyasurya, B., 2007. Multi-objective reactive power planning: a pareto
optimization approach. In: 2007 International Conference on Intelligent
Systems Applications To Power Systems. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Soares, T., Carvalho, L., Morais, H., Bessa, R.J., Abreu, T., Lambert, E., 2020.
Reactive power provision by the DSO to the TSO considering renewable
energy sources uncertainty. Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. 100333.
Soler, E.M., Asada, E.N., Da Costa, G.R.M., 2013. Penalty-based nonlinear solver
for optimal reactive power dispatch with discrete controls. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 28 (3), 2174–2182.
Srinivasan, D., Tettamanzi, A.G., 1997. An evolutionary algorithm for evaluation
of emission compliance options in view of the clean air act amendments.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12 (1), 336–341.
Subbaraj, P., Rajnarayanan, P.N., 2009. Optimal reactive power dispatch using
self-adaptive real coded genetic algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 79 (2),
374–381.
Sulaiman, M.H., Mustaffa, Z., Mohamed, M.R., Aliman, O., 2015. Using the gray
wolf optimizer for solving optimal reactive power dispatch problem. Appl.
Soft Comput. 32, 286–292.
Talukdar, S.N., Giras, T.C., Kalyan, V.K., 1983. Decompositions for optimal power
flows. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. (12), 3877–3884.
2229
Tripathy, M., Mishra, S., 2007. Bacteria foraging-based solution to optimize both
real power loss and voltage stability limit. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (1),
240–248.
Tushar, M.H.K., Assi, C., 2017. Volt-VAR control through joint optimization of
capacitor bank switching, renewable energy, and home appliances. IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 9 (5), 4077–4086.
Umar, M., Sabir, Z., Raja, M.A.Z., 2019. Intelligent computing for numeri-
cal treatment of nonlinear prey–predator models. Appl. Soft Comput. 80,
506–524.
Valipour, K., Ghasemi, A., 2017. Using a new modified harmony search algo-
rithm to solve multi-objective reactive power dispatch in deterministic and
stochastic models. J. AI Data Min. 5 (1), 89–100.
Varadarajan, M., Swarup, K.S., 2008. Differential evolution approach for optimal
reactive power dispatch. Appl. Soft Comput. 8 (4), 1549–1561.
Vaziri, M., Tomsovic, K., Bose, A., Gonen, T., 2001. Distribution expansion
problem: formulation and practicality for a multistage globally optimal so-
lution. In: 2001 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference
Proceedings (Cat. No. 01CH37194), vol. 3. IEEE, pp. 1461–1466.
Vishnu, M., Sunil Kumar, T.K., 2020. An improved solution for reactive power
dispatch problem using diversity-enhanced particle swarm optimization.
Energies 13 (11), 2862.
Vlachogiannis, J.G., Lee, K.Y., 2006. A comparative study on particle swarm
optimization for optimal steady-state performance of power systems. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 21 (4), 1718–1728.
Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Wang, C., Hu, Z., Yao, L., Ma, Z., Zhu, Z., 2008.
Pareto Optimality-based multi-objective transmission planning considering
transmission congestion. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (9), 1619–1626.
Wang, H., Murillo-Sanchez, C.E., Zimmerman, R.D., Thomas, R.J., 2007. On
computational issues of market-based optimal power flow. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 22 (3), 1185–1193.
Wang, Y.-Y., Peng, W.-X., Qiu, C.-H., Jiang, J., Xia, S.-R., 2019. Fractional-order
darwinian PSO-based feature selection for media-adventitia border detection
in intravascular ultrasound images. Ultrasonics 92, 1–7.
Wang, L., Singh, C., 2007. Environmental/economic power dispatch using a fuzzi-
fied multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 77 (12), 1654–1664.
Wang, Y.-Y., Zhang, H., Qiu, C.-H., Xia, S.-R., 2018. A novel feature selection
method based on extreme learning machine and fractional-order darwinian
PSO. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2018.
Warid, W., 2020. Optimal power flow using the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. Appl.
Soft Comput. 106252.
Wells, D., 1968. Method for economic secure loading of a power system. In:
Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol. 115, no. 8. IET, pp.
1190–1194.
Wu, Q.H., Cao, Y.J., Wen, J.Y., 1998. Optimal reactive power dispatch using an
adaptive genetic algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 20 (8), 563–569.
Wu, Q.H., Ma, J.T., 1995. Power system optimal reactive power dispatch using
evolutionary programming. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (3), 1243–1249.
Xiong, H., Cheng, H., Li, H., 2008. Optimal reactive power flow incorporating
static voltage stability based on multi-objective adaptive immune algorithm.
Energy Convers. Manage. 49 (5), 1175–1181.
Yan, W., Yu, J., Yu, D., Bhattarai, K., 2006. A new optimal reactive power flow
model in rectangular form and its solution by predictor corrector primal dual
interior point method. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21 (1), 61–67.
Yokoya, N., Ghamisi, P., 2016. Land-cover monitoring using time-series hyper-
spectral data via fractional-order darwinian particle swarm optimization
segmentation. In: 2016 8th Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal
Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS). IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Yumbla, P.E.O., Ramirez, J.M., Coello, C.A.C., 2008. Optimal power flow subject
to security constraints solved with a particle swarm optimizer. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 23 (1), 33–40.
Zhang, W., Li, F., Tolbert, L.M., 2007. Review of reactive power planning:
objectives, constraints, and algorithms. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 22 (4),
2177–2186.
Zhang, X., Wang, X.-F., 2005. Survey of financial markets for electricity.. Dianli
Xitong Zidonghua(Autom. Electr. Power Syst.) 29 (20), 1–9.
Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Cao, Y.J., 2005. A multiagent-based particle swarm optimiza-
tion approach for optimal reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
20 (2), 1070–1078.
Zhu, J., Momoh, J.A., 2001. Multi-area power systems economic dispatch using
nonlinear convex network flow programming. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 59 (1),
13–20.
Zhu, Q., Yuan, M., Liu, Y.-L., Chen, W.-D., Chen, Y., Wang, H.-R., 2014. Research
and application on fractional-order darwinian PSO based adaptive extended
kalman filtering algorithm. IAES Int. J. Robotics Autom. 3 (4), 245.