Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

On Multiobjective Volt-VAR Optimization in Power Systems

Miroslav M. Begovic, Branislav Radibratovic, Frank C. Lambert

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta GA 30332-0250
miroslav@ece.gatech.edu

Abstract planning in transmission networks often addresses

The need for simultaneous optimization of reactive
resources for the transmission and distribution system
has long been recognized. If investment resources are
limited, various combinations of solutions (voltage level,
amount and type of reactive support, etc.) may impact a
number of objectives (distribution losses, distribution
feeder power factor, voltage profile for conservative
voltage reduction, transmission losses, transmission
capacity, voltage stability, etc.). While solutions have
been proposed for subsets of the above problems, few
algorithms have undertaken the simultaneous
optimization of reactive resources in the transmission
and distribution network. This paper attempts to address
various issues that need to be solved: decomposition of
the transmission model from the distribution model,
design of an interface suitable for simultaneous
optimization, and development of the methodology
(multiobjective optimization based on building Pareto
fronts with the help of custom-tailored genetic
algorithms). Some of the issues discussed in this paper
are illustrated on suitable examples and guidelines
proposed for building a practical model that would
incorporate all of the concerns with the modeling issues.
Index Terms—volt/var optimization in power
systems, multiobjective optimization.
1. Introduction
Modern electric utility companies are faced with the
problem of constant load growth together with a strict
limitation of investment resources, which severely limits
the growth of the infrastructure. One method for
increasing transmission capacity is investment in
reactive resources, which are used in both transmission
and distribution networks. While locating and sizing
reactive support, different objectives can be chosen.
Design goals in distribution networks are usually
optimization of distribution losses, distribution feeder
power factor and voltage profile. Reactive power
transmission losses, transmission capacity and voltage
stability as main objectives.
Various algorithms have been proposed to solve the
capacitor placement problem, either on the transmission
network or on the distribution feeders, when only one of
the above objectives is optimized. These types of
problems are often referred to as single-objective
optimization problems. In recent years, multi-objective
problems have arisen in many engineering applications.
Two or more objectives (usually confronted) need to be
simultaneously optimized. The problem of simultaneous
optimization of reactive resources on the transmission
and distribution system represents a further step in the
generalization of the problem. Only a few algorithms are
applicable for simultaneous optimization of reactive
resources in the transmission and distribution network.
This paper addresses various issues that need to be
solved: Decomposition of the transmission model from
the distribution model, design of the interface suitable
for simultaneous optimization and development of the
methodology (multiobjective optimization based the on
building of Pareto optimal solution fronts through the
use of custom-tailored genetic algorithms).
2. Concept of multi-objective optimization
In many practical problems, several optimization
criteria need to be satisfied simultaneously. Moreover, it
is often not advisable to combine them into a single
objective. While it may sometimes happen that a single
solution optimizes all of the criteria, the more likely
scenario is when one solution is optimal with respect to
a single criterion while other solutions are best with
respect to the other criteria. The increase of the
“goodness” of the solution with respect to one objective
will produce a decrease of its “goodness” with respect to
the others. While there are no problems in understanding
the notion of optimality in single objective problems,
multiobjective optimization requires the concept of
Pareto-optimality.

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 1

 Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
The solution is said to be Pareto-optimal (belongs to
the Pareto-optimal front, or set of solutions) if, with its
change not one objective function can be improved
without degrading all of the others. All of the solutions
that make up a Pareto-optimal front are said to be non-
dominated (by other solutions). Concepts of the Pareto-
optimal front, non-dominated and dominated solutions
are further explained in Fig. 1. The axes on Fig. 1 (F1
and F2) are two objective functions. Possible solutions
for minimization are presented in the F1-F2 plane.
Solutions marked with triangles are called non-
dominated and they make up the Pareto-optimal front.
Those marked with circles are the dominated (non-
Pareto optimal) solutions.
F2
Dominated solution
x3
x1 Non-dominated solution
x2
Pareto-optimal
front
F1
Fig. 1. Pareto-optimality, non-dominated and
dominated solutions, bi-objective case
A solution x is dominated if there exists a solution y
such that for all objective functions Fi stands:
Fi(x) ≤ Fi(y) for all i ∈ {1,2,…, n}
If the solution is not dominated by any other feasible
solution, we call it a non-dominated (Pareto-optimal)
solution. If the domination operator is “;”:
• x1 ; x3 and x2 ; x3 (x3 is dominated)
• x1 ` x2 and x2 ` x1 (x1, x2 are non-dominated)
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
3. Test model
Any attempt to solve the multiobjective Volt-Var
optimization for the entire power system will present a
monumental challenge due to the system size and
complexity of the solution. To that end, it is proposed to
decouple the transmission model from the distribution
model. The transmission system and each distribution
feeder can be investigated separately. The Pareto-
optimal front of the solutions is found for every
distribution feeder and the transmission system as well.
These solutions then provide input data to a suitably
designed interface algorithm. The design of the interface
algorithm capable of finding the globally optimal
solution is the main goal of this research. The algorithm
should solve for the Pareto optima while simultaneously
taking into consideration both transmission system and
distribution feeder solutions.
As an illustration of the system decomposition,
transmission and distribution system models are shown
in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. These models will be
used as an instructional example for the proposed
algorithm. The transmission model is derived from the
IEEE 5-bus system by removing the second generator
originally connected to bus 3. This alteration is made to
enable two possible alternatives for capacitor placement
on the transmission network, namely bus 1 and bus 3.
The distribution feeder model is derived from the
IEEE 13-node test feeder. This feeder is very small but
relatively highly loaded, which enables various
possibilities for capacitor placement. The following
modifications are performed on the original feeder: The
existing switch and low voltage transformer are
removed from the model, the distributed load is
neglected, and all loads have been balanced. Table 1
summarizes the necessary feeder data.
4 2 3
G
P3,
Q3
1
P1, Q1
Fig. 2. Transmission system model
2
 Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

TS Optimize: F
0
Subject to: G(G, V, Qc) = 0 (1)
Qci = k Qc0 k = 0, 1, 2 …
where:
4 3 1 2 F - vector of objectives
G - set of power flow equations
G - vector of voltage angles
V - vector of voltage magnitudes
10 8 5 6 Qc- vector of reactive support
Qci - reactive support applied to the bus “i”
Qc0 - incremental reactive support step

4.1. Distribution system

9 7
Fig. 3. Distribution feeder model This section presents Pareto-optimal solutions for the
feeder shown in Fig. 3. Solving for any Pareto-optimal
Table 1. Feeder load data front assumes more than one objective. Two
(confronted) objectives chosen here are: 1) the
Node P (kW) Q (kVAr) investment in reactive resources (assumed to be directly
2 400 290 proportional to the amount of reactive support); and 2)
3 170 125 feeder losses. The optimization problem (1) therefore
4 230 132 can then be reformulated as:
5 1155 660
6 1013 613 Minimize: Ploss = Ploss (G, V, Qc)
9 126 86 11
10 170 80 Minimize: Investment = ¦Q ci ⋅ PF
i =1 (2)
To link the distribution feeder models with the Subject to: G(G, V, Qc) = 0;
transmission network, all of the feeder loads are doubled Qci = k Qc0 k = 0, 1, 2 …
and it is assumed that ten identical feeders are connected where:
to each transmission load bus (bus 1 and bus 3). The set PF - price of capacitor on the distribution feeder
of feeders on each transmission bus represents a model
of the distribution system. 4.1.1. Genetic algorithm as an optimization tool.
There are several ways to solve the optimization
4. Optimization algorithm problem (2). Genetic algorithms (GAs) are the natural
tool for solving the problem, even more so when other
The general approach for solution of the multi- objectives are also included in the optimization. As
objective Volt-Var problem requires that reactive described in [1], “Genetic algorithms are based on the
resources be divided between the transmission and mechanics of natural selection and natural genetics”. GA
distribution system. The list of optimization objectives differs from traditional (calculus-based) optimization
may include distribution losses, distribution feeder and search procedures in following ways:
power factor, voltage profile, transmission losses, • It uses probabilistic transition rules rather than the
transmission capacity, voltage stability, etc. deterministic ones.
We propose that the power system model be separated • It does not need the knowledge of gradients or any
into transmission and distribution subsystems. These other auxiliary knowledge of the objective function.
systems are to be solved separately. Families of It uses only the objective function values, evaluated
solutions for capacitor placement are found for each at a number of points.
subsystem. These solutions should then be combined • It works with a population of solutions rather than
with a suitably designed interface algorithm to filter the with a single solution.
unique Pareto-optimal solution front. The optimization For the solution of the problem defined in (2), bi-
problem for both systems, treated separately, can be objective GA is applied. The cost of the feeder reactive
formulated as: support is assumed to be Pf = 15 $/kVA. The incremental
reactive support step is assumed to be Qc0 = 100

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 3

 Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

kVA/phase. The optimization results are presented in This problem can be solved using the same genetic
Fig. 5 and Table 2. Figure 5 shows the Pareto-optimal algorithm as the distribution feeder. The cost of the
front of the solutions, while Table 2 provides numerical transmission reactive support is assumed to be PT =
explanations for only a few of the possible solutions. 10 $/kVA. The incremental reactive support step is
Due to the linear relationship between investment and assumed to be Qc0 = 1 MVA/phase. The optimization
the amount of reactive support, the latter is shown as an results are presented in Fig. 6 and Table 3. Figure 6
objective in Fig. 5. shows the transmission system Pareto-optimal front of
solutions, while Table 3 provides numerical
6
explanations for a few of the possible solutions. Due to
the linear dependence between investment and the
5 amount of reactive support, the latter is shown as an
objective in Fig. 6.
Rea ctive supp ort (M V A )

4
90

80
3

70

Reactive support (M V A )
2
60

50
1

40

0
270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 30

D istrib utio n lo sses (kW )

20
Fig. 5. Distribution feeder, Pareto-optimal front
of solutions (every point represents a different 10

capacitor allocation on the feeder) 0

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Transm ission Losses (M W )
Table 2. A few of the distribution feeder Pareto-
Fig. 6. Transmission system, Pareto-optimal
optimal solutions
front
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C9 ΣC Ploss
MVA MVA MVA MVA MVA MVA MVA MVA kW Table 3. Structure of transmission system
0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 466 Pareto-optimal solutions
0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0.3 1.8 367
0 0 0 0 1.2 1.5 0.3 3.0 315 C1 (MVA) 0 2 11 18 25 31 42
0 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.5 0.3 4.8 280 C3 (MVA) 10 28 29 32 35 39 44
0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.5 0.3 5.7 277 ΣC (MVA) 10 30 40 50 60 70 86
Ploss (MW) 12.3 9.7 8.69 7.86 7.20 6.73 6.43
4.2. Transmission system
4.3. Interface algorithm
The transmission system should be solved separately
from the distribution system. Transmission losses and The main challenge is how to optimize reactive
the amount of reactive support are the two selected resources, with respect to multiple criteria, for the entire
minimization criteria. The optimization problem (1), transmission and distribution system. Defining system
applied on transmission system model shown in Fig. 2, losses as the optimization objective, the optimization
can be reformulated as: problem can be cast as:
Minimize: Ploss = Ploss (G, V, Qc) Minimize: ΣPloss = Ploss,TS + ΣPloss,F
2
Investment = ⋅ PT Subject to: G(G, V, Qc) = 0;
Minimize: ¦Q ci (3) (4)
i =1 Qci = k Qc0T
Subject to: G(G, V, Qc) = 0; Qcj = k Qc0F
Qci = k Qc0 k = 0, 1, 2 … PT ⋅ ¦ Qci + PF ⋅ ¦ Qcj ≤ I .R.
i j

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 4

 Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
where:
ΣPloss,F - sum of losses of all feeders in system
k - non-negative integer
Qci - reactive support applied at transmission bus
“i”
Qcj - reactive support applied at feeder node “j”
Qc0T - transmission incremental reactive support
step
Qc0F - feeder incremental reactive support step
I.R. - limitation of investment resources
In the optimization problem (4), the questions to be
answered are:
• How to allocate resources in both the transmission
and distribution networks.
• How to divide the resources between networks.
• How to divide the support between feeders
connected to different transmission buses.
The first question is already answered with the Pareto
fronts of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. The answers to the
subsequent questions will be provided by the interface
algorithm. The interface algorithm combines both Pareto
fronts and finds particular solutions that represent a
global optimum.
4.3.1. Algorithm structure.
Step 1. Choose an initial solution.
Find a transmission Pareto solution (Fig. 6) that
corresponds to a certain amount of investment (reactive
support). If the investment resources are higher than the
investment corresponding to the top point in the Pareto
front, choose the top point as the starting point (keeping
in mind that additional investment should be available
for the distribution system).
Step 2. Outer loop starts.
Starting from the initial solution, go down the
transmission Pareto front. Repeat the following steps for
each transmission solution.
Step 3. Calculate the available feeder support (reactive
resources).
Step 4. Inner loop starts.
Compensate the feeders at each transmission bus with
the available reactive support.
Step 5. Find the optimal capacitor allocation for the
feeder(s).
Use sensitivity analysis of losses with respect to the
active and reactive load on the transmission buses with
compensated feeders and find the optimal feeder
schedule (number of compensated feeders on a
particular transmission bus). Reduce the reactive support
from the transmission bus that is the most insensitive to
the losses and transfer that support to the most sensitive
bus.
Step 6. Inner loop ends.
Step 7. Outer loop starts.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
Step 8. Extract optimal solution.
4.3.2. Application of Interface Algorithm to the Test
System. In the following example, the limit for
investment resources is chosen to correspond to the top
point of the transmission system Pareto front. It amounts
to $860,000 (10$/kVA*86MVA). To further reduce the
complexity of the problem, it is assumed that the voltage
on the source end of the feeders (node 0) is kept
constant, which further decouples the problem. In this
way, the feeder consumption (P and Q loads at
transmissions buses), together with feeder losses, is kept
dependent only on the amount of reactive support
applied on the feeder. The feeder consumption is not
dependent on voltages at transmission buses; i.e. it is not
dependent on transmission capacitor allocation.
The above algorithm produces the set of solutions
depicted in Fig. 7. It represents overall losses as a
function of the transmission reactive support (in MVA
or in dollar terms). Investment resources are kept
constant. The difference in reactive support between the
initial solution (86MVA) and any subsequent point is
transferred as support to the distribution feeders. The
graph in Fig. 7 contains 19 sets of solutions
corresponding to 19 possible scenarios of feeder
compensation (19 members of the feeder Pareto-optimal
front).
90
80
Tra nsm issio n re a ctive sup po rt (M V A )
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
Ove ra ll lo sse s (MW )
Fig. 7. Overall losses vs. level of transmission
reactive support (investment resources limited
at $860,000)
The minimal overall losses correspond to the solution
when only 14 MVA is applied in the transmission
system. The following capacitor placement scenario
yields the minimal losses:
Transmission system: C1 = 0 C2 = 14MVA
Distribution feeder: C2=0.6MVA C3=0.3MVA
C4=0.3MVA C5=1.8MVA C6=1.5MVA C9=0.3MVA
5
 Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004

Optimal feeder schedule: BUS1 - 50%, BUS3 - 50% initial solution (86MVA support
1.1 to transmission system)
no reactive support
The transmission system was supported with 14MVA, 1 solution that minimizes loses
while the overall feeder support was 48MVA (ten
0.9
feeders compensated with 4.8MVA each). The fact that

V oltage at bus 3 (p.u.)

the distribution feeders require 77% of the overall 0.8
reactive support is because of their high load and
0.7
extremely bad power factor. The best solution yields an
overall loss ΣPloss= 4.29MVA, which is 12% less than 0.6
the initial solution (16.21MVA), and still requires the
0.5
same investment. (14MVA*$10/kVA +
10feeders*4.8MVA*$15/kVA = $860,000) 0.4

5. Impact on voltage stability margin
The influence of the capacitor allocations discussed in
the above example on the voltage stability margin is
investigated. Continuation power flow, applied on the
system model without reactive support, yields some
alarming data. The critical loading factor of the system
is λ = 1.108 (10.8 percent load increase before voltage
collapse). Applying reactive support to the system is
expected to be beneficial, but it is not known whether
the transfer of reactive support from the transmission to
the distribution portion of the system would worsen the
voltage stability loading margin. The answer appears to
be negative. Transferring reactive support to the
distribution network decreases the reactive load of the
transmission system and increases the system voltage
stability loading margin. Figure 8 illustrates this
observation. The following PV curves are shown in
Fig.8:
• No reactive support to system (λ = 1.108)
• Entire ($860k) reactive support applied to the
transmission network (critical loading margin
increased to λ=1.294)
• Minimal loss scenario (critical loading margin
further increased to λ=1.508)
0.3
0.2
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Loading factor (p.u.)
Fig. 8. System’s PV curves for different
capacitor scenarios
Decomposition of the transmission model from the
distribution feeders is proposed as a necessary step to
reduce the complexity of the problem. After the
decoupled parts of the system are solved independently,
a suitable interface is designed for simultaneous
optimization. Custom designed genetic algorithms are
used as multiobjective optimization tools that rely on
sensitivity analysis to reduce the search space and allow
implementation for large system models.
7. Acknowledgment
Financial support of the National Electric Energy
Testing, Research and Applications Center (NEETRAC)
used for part of the work presented in this paper is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors also would like to
acknowledge Dr. Damir Novosel, with whom they had
many fruitful discussions about multi-objective
optimizations.

6. Conclusions
The problem of simultaneous optimization of reactive
resources on the transmission and distribution system is
solved by decoupling the analysis of the transmission
and distribution networks. The investment resources are
assumed to be limited and known. Under this
constraint, a number of optimization objectives can be
chosen (distribution losses, distribution feeder power
factor, voltage profile for conservative voltage
reduction, transmission losses, transmission capacity,
voltage stability, etc.). This paper addresses the various
issues that need to be resolved to solve this problem.
8. References
[1] D Goldberg, Genetic Algorithm in Search, Optimization
and Machine Learning, New York: Addison Wesley,
1989.
[2] B. Baran, J. Vallejos, R. Ramos, U. Fernandez "Reactive
Power Compensation using a Multi-objective
Evolutionary Algorithm" IEEE Porto Power Tech
Conference, Porto, Portugal September, 2001
[3] J.T. Ma, L.L. Lai “Evolutionary Programming Approach
to Reactive Power Planning” IEE Proceedings –
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol 143, No.
4, July 1996

0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 6