Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Optimal parameter estimation of 1-phase and 3-phase transmission line for

various bundle conductor’s using modified whale optimization algorithm
Muhammad Suhail Shaikh a, *, Changchun Hua a, Saurav Raj b, *, Shubash Kumar a,
Mannan Hassan c, Muhammad Mohsin Ansari d, Munsif Ali Jatoi e
a
Institute of Electrical Engineering, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Marathwada Campus, Jalna, India
c
School of Electrical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
d
Department of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, China
e
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Salim Habib University, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The overhead power line transmits and distributes electricity across large regions it has several conductors on
Modified whale optimization algorithm poles. Power system stability analysis and state estimates need a thorough understanding of transmission line
Single and three-phase parameters. To compute the overhead AC transmission line parameters, authors have proposed a modified whale
Capacitance
optimization algorithm based on levy flight from four perspectives: dimension selection, exploration controls,
Inductance
Bundle conductor
modified encircling prey, and candidate solution choice. The proposed work suggested modified whale opti­
Transmission line mization algorithms to calculate capacitance and inductance per unit length for single-phase and three-phase for
Voltage stability the different number of bundle conductors. At first, the performance of the algorithm is evaluated and compared
with different optimization techniques on 23 standard benchmark functions that are used to evaluate their
abilities to discover optimum solutions. Then, the proposed technique is applied in determining optimal
parameter settings of 1-phase and 3-phase overhead transmission lines while considering different combinations
of bundle conductors for inductor and capacitor. From the results, it can be concluded that the MWOA technique
provides more accuracy and reliability to obtain global or near-global optimal settings of control variables. Also,
results reveal the proposed technique has the potent to solve real-world optimization problems and is compet­
itive with recent methods.

1. Introduction system must manage the transmission, production, and distribution of

Considering the electrical properties of a transmission line is
responsible for the proper functioning of an electric power system. Many
elements of power system analysis, such as fault identification in over­
head lines and underground cables, are closely linked to accurate
parameter estimation in a power grid. Since a result, precision is
required to compute line parameters properly, as it is a need for an
efficient and effective operation. Nowadays, generation and trans­
mission systems are under increasing state pressure and are going to
experience an increase in power loss as a result of demands, environ­
mental, social constraints, and the competitive energy industry, and
there are some needs to improve power demand. The main working
principle of any power system is to provide electricity to its consumers in
a quality, reliable, and cost-effective manner. Furthermore, the energy
power systems since it is challenging to supply changing consumer de­
mand fast and efficiently in power system analysis, there are numerous
issues with certain variables having complexity, and therefore no spe­
cific solution to problems exists. As a result, optimization methods are
used to offer answers to these undecided issues. For various problems,
different optimization techniques are employed. The primary benefit of
optimization techniques is that they discover the most accurate calcu­
lation with the least amount of error.
The swarm intelligence method can cope with a wide range of issues
that traditional optimization approaches cannot. As a result, optimiza­
tion methods have been extensively utilized in a variety of fields of
research. Each year, many new heuristic methods are suggested, and
research in the field is active. A whale optimization algorithm (WOA) for
finding line parameters that is comparable to others in the literature.

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: suhail.shaikh@live.com (M. Suhail Shaikh), sauravsonusahu@gmail.com (S. Raj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107893
Received 29 April 2021; Received in revised form 17 October 2021; Accepted 15 December 2021
Available online 31 December 2021
0142-0615/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 1a. The equivalent pi network of transmission line.
Fig. 1b. Load modelling of induction motor.
Each estimate technique has benefits and disadvantages that are
dependent on the transmission system’s operational circumstances. The
recently proposed whale optimization algorithm (WOA) suffers from
poor accuracy and delayed convergence. It is also very easy to fall into a
state of local optimum. This article proposes a new modified WOA-based
levy fight named MWOA to address the identified limitations. The sug­
gested estimation methods make use of the most important features of
both the novel determination method created in this research and other
well-established techniques previously published in the literature. This
study demonstrates a simplified alternative estimate method for trans­
mission line parameters that take into account different bundle
conductors.
Fig. 1c. measurement-based load modeling algorithm.
2
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
1.1. Motivation and incitement
The overhead transmission line system is critical to the operation of
the electric system, particularly in deregulated settings where it is used
to connect the power system’s generating and distribution components
[1]. In order to perform load flow calculations, build [2] a suitable
protection system, and locate different faults inside [3] an overhead
transmission line (OHTL), it is necessary to identify the parameters of
the line [4]. These characteristics, although they may be accessible from
the manufacturer’s datasheet, particularly for new installations [5], are
either unknown or have changed as a result of age, environmental [6],
and operational circumstances for most existing lines. This needs the
development of a trustworthy method for estimating OHTL parameters
[7]. The physical characteristics of the line, including its size and ma­
terial, as well as the line’s sag, tower height, and soil conditions, are all
taken into consideration when estimating OHTL parameters using con­
ventional techniques. A substantial amount of inaccuracy is introduced
into the predicted parameters by using these techniques, which is owing
to the use of numerous assumptions to make the analysis more
straightforward. The use of electrical energy has grown significantly,
and this has encouraged distribution framework companies to provide
the necessary power via proper system planning and use [8]. The need to
improve power demand, power quality, global warming problems, and
the environment has supported the development of distributed genera­
tion and these distribution generation power plant must be installed
located near a distribution supply to provide a larger amount of power to
the customer [9].
1.2. Literature review
The worldwide demand for electrical power is increasing OHTL is
among the most important components of a power system. Because of
the distant position of power stations from the load, these lines are the
source of electrical energy in power systems from power production to
distribution or consumer levels. A constant balanced process should be
maintained to match the power supply side to the consumer [10]. There
have been many OHTL parameters estimate methods published in the
literature [11], all of them are based on frequency or time-domain
analysis in order [12] to minimize estimation error. The OHTL is rep­
resented by cascaded networks consisting of series resistance and
inductance (R, L), mutual inductance (M), and shunt capacitance (C) in
the time domain-based techniques, which is comparable to the trans­
former modeling [13]. the estimation values of L and C at the funda­
mental frequency are given to establish the relays coordination and
build a protective system for the relays. Although this technique is
effective in the laboratory, the sophisticated data processing required
makes it unsuitable for use in the field. [14] describes another estimate
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 2. (a) PV curve with ZIP load (b) VSM with the PV curve.
method that is based on synchronized voltage and current measure­
ments at both terminals of the line during fault circumstances that are
performed with the help of a fault recorder. Although this method needs
sensors that are capable of processing data quickly, the parameters that
may be calculated are influenced by the kind of problem. In [15] de­
scribes a method for calculating OHTL parameters using short-circuit
current and open-circuit voltage data; however, this technique is not
appropriate for practical applications. The few efforts to estimate OHTL
parameters that have been published in the literature have all failed
since no method has been provided that is simple to apply. This may be
explained by the fact that most of the methods described concentrated
on using the estimated parameters to build a protection system for either
new or existing transmission networks, which did not need the use of
real-time implementation with the worldwide trend toward the estab­
lishment of smart energy grids, electric utilities are striving to imple­
ment dependable, automated, and non-invasive methods for the goal of
self-healing to keep up with the times. Power lines operate under severe
environmental circumstances, making them more susceptible to faults.
Faults often develop abruptly after some unexpected occurrence, such as
a line swinging, and are difficult to predict. However, while some
techniques, such as traveling waves and apparent impedance methods,
have been developed to locate fault locations within power lines after
they have occurred, no technique has been developed to detect
abnormal events and isolate the power line before the occurrence of the
fault [16]. Estimation of the OHTL parameters is accomplished via the
application of certain standard optimization methods [17]. The
convergence of these classical methods is not guaranteed, and division
by zero may occur over the course of the optimization process. Tradi­
tional optimization techniques require an accurate definition of the
objective function that should be minimized or maximized, as well as the
symbolic differentiation of this function, which increases the time
required for the optimization process and makes it more difficult to
achieve a satisfactory result. These limitations necessitate the use of
simple ideas and readily implemented optimization methods that do not
need the use of gradient definitions. In the field of power systems, ge­
netic algorithm and particle swarm optimization (PSO) techniques are
widely used as benchmark methods, and they have many applications.
There are more contemporary and efficient approaches that have
been described in the literature [18]. In several situations, certain novel
optimization methods outperformed the genetic algorithm and the
particle swarm optimization (PSO). whale optimization algorithm
3
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
(WOA) [19] and Elephant herding [20], harmony search is only a few of
the new techniques being developed. In recent years, there have been a
few efforts to estimate equivalent circuit parameters of certain systems
using optimization methods. This is in line with the fast development of
optimization techniques. Various optimization techniques may be used
to accurately predict the parameters of an electric power system when
an appropriate objective function is used, and readily available data is
used to do so. PSO has been used to estimate the parameters of many
power system components [21,22] including the power transformer,
induction motor, and solar system [23]. For the transmission line
parameter problems, a meta-heuristic method known as the modified
whale optimization algorithm (MWOA) has just been suggested. MWOA
outperforms a wide number of different meta-heuristic methods and they
are given below:
• Fewer control variables
• Same patterns for various problems.
• It can be used to solve a wide range of optimization algorithms.
• The key characteristics investigated are the ability to adapt,
robustness, and scalability.
• Simple to understanding and apply
Furthermore, WOA and its derivatives are incapable of handling
high-dimensional optimization problems effectively enough with this
article and propose an efficient method based on the MWOA for the
estimation of the OHTL electric parameters, Capacitance (C), and
Inductance (L), which is the primary contribution of this work. How­
ever, in some fixed-dimension problems, the suggested MWOA has some
limitations, including convergence accuracy and limited speed.
1.3. Contribution and paper organization
The OHTL Parameter is proposed in this article as a method of
obtaining it. Because of its excellent exploration and exploitation skills,
MWOA, a meta-heuristic optimization technique, was suggested to
calculate OHTL parameters in this study. The following are the most
significant contributions made by this research:
• The OHTL for a single-phase and three-phase system is estimated
using MWOA.
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 3. The proposed MWOA flowchart.
• 12 cases are considered while computing OHTL, namely, two bundle
conductors, three bundle conductors, and four bundle conductors.
• The suggested algorithms are validated using a set of 23 standard
benchmark functions that are used to evaluate their features in terms
of obtaining the best possible results.
• The consistency of the proposed methodology is further supported by
a boxplot, which was used in combination with a thorough statistical
analysis conducted for a set of 30 unique runs to verify its effec­
tiveness and reliability.
• The proposed methods are compared to other well-known optimi­
zation algorithms to determine their effectiveness
1.4. Problem statement
The transmission line power transferring capability is dependent
upon effective and lossless transmission. To achieve this, the design
4
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
parameters should be developed optimally to reduce losses. Thus,
optimization is needed to yield the best conditions. This work develops
an optimization framework based upon a modified whale optimization
algorithm based on various bundle configurations to enhance the
transmission line parameters considering different cases.
1.4.1. Objective function formulation
The overhead transmission line parameters (OHTL) include capaci­
tance and inductance on the single-phase and three-phase is represented
mathematically as:
f 1(ΔL1 , Δc1 ) (1)
f 2(ΔL2 , Δc2 ) (2)
The suggested work attempts to reduce the transmission line
parameter to its smallest possible value while taking into account the
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 4. Benchmark functions from F1–F23 (a) 2D Function plot, (b) convergence characteristics with the different algorithms (c) Box plot for different algorithm.

minimize inductance and capacitance values for single-phase and three-
phase transmission lines. The main objective functions are used in
mathematics to solve the issue.
F,opt = (f1 (ΔL1 , Δc1 ),f2 (ΔL2 , Δc2 ))
Where ΔL1 , Δc1 and ΔL1 , Δc2 are the changes in inductance and
capacitance for a single and three-phase transmission line at each iter­
ation of the algorithm. As a result, the objective issue may be stated in a
predictable manner as
(3)

5
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 4. (continued).

6
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 4. (continued).

minimizeF,opt (4) optimization methods. The article is finally summarized in Section 6.

In the following sections 2, a review of the uncertainty behavior of

2. Uncertainty behaviour of the transmission line
the transmission line is presented: Section 3 provides a short overview of
the proposed modified whale optimization algorithm’s fundamental
Voltage uncertainty is now a major cause of power transmission and
theory, as well as the processes involved in its implementation. Section 4
distribution insecurity, and certain power outages are linked to this
contains a mathematical model of the transmission line. Section 5 shows
stability issue. Because the power system has lately been nearing its
the result and discussion of the proposed method with different

7
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 4. (continued).
stability limit, this is a major issue for system reliability and control
[24]. Uncertainty behavior has a significant effect on power system
dependability and service quality, which may cause consumers to suffer.
They may also be swinging off the longitudinal suspension of the points,
causing changes in tension. For example, two wires between two
transmission poles often sag and gallop, resulting in voltage sag. Ac­
cording to the IEEE standard, 1159–1995, some of the methods used to
manage power quality are mentioned [25]. While stability loss typically
results in dramatic circumstances, such as power failures, it has played
an important part in the past blackout, and the dynamic reaction of the
load influences the voltage and reduces angular stability. Because of
inadequate damping, the impact of load on overall network behavior
may result in the loss of stability analysis [26]. The main reason for
voltage uncertainty is a lack of information about all elements’ dynamic
characteristics as a result of sparse observations, calculations, and loads
[24]. Fig. 1(a) demonstrates the appropriate transmission pi model.
Incorporating uncertainty into existing models is critical for enhancing
the security system, which is defined as the capacity of the electric
network system to resist disruptions while sustaining power delivery
service. Fig. 1(b) shows a model for the voltage stability margin pro­
posed in this study [27].
Fig. 1c shows that the calculation of load modelling structure (LMS)
8
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
for the static load model (SLM) is generally used in load model structure.
2.1. Load modeling for voltage stability margin (VSM)
The section presents an overview of load modeling. It is correlated to
reduce the difference between the observed and computed values. As a
result, the load and voltage are considered in this research. In this
voltage stability study, the ZIP model is utilized for load simulation. ZIP
stands for load power like a polynomial voltage expression. The mod­
ule’s structure is given in Eq. (5) [28].
[ ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
V 2 V 1 V 0
P = Po az + ai ap (5)
V0 V0 V0
Where az, ai, and ap are parameters describing the voltage depen­
dence of the active loads, and some cases can be limited to the range
[0,1], P0 is the active power at the base voltage V0 and V is the steady-
state voltage.
During the estimation phase, three parameters of the load model (az,
ai, and ap) are calculated using recorded data as input. The goal of
parameter estimation is to satisfy the answer. The following is a con­
structed model with computed answers and the goal function needed to
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 1
Statistical results of fitness function evaluated using various optimization techniques.
Function Algorithm Best Worst Mean Standard Deviation

Unimodal benchmark functions

F1 GWO 526.7872 6982.4940 3048.6477 1871.7971
HHO 448.2390 20115.9674 4230.8101 3476.8652
WOA 584.1047 9987.8880 3958.1124 2429.2646
OWOA 82.2810 18438.9971 4729.6497 3759.9483
MWOA 0.0031 0.0473 0.0140 0.0097
F2 GWO 0.7974 18.9330 7.6436 4.1768
HHO 1.4553 15.6142 6.2411 3.2322
WOA 0.9520 17.8374 6.4703 4.0439
OWOA 0.9909 14.2857 6.0419 3.9107
MWOA 0.0126 0.0521 0.0262 0.0112
F3 GWO 9223.420 47725.756 27165.796 8316.628
HHO 17074.825 36707.770 27050.190 4859.000
WOA 13196.111 52348.694 31341.056 10167.881
OWOA 17312.400 50497.118 30091.048 9357.590
MWOA 51.513 850.742 290.109 193.945
F4 GWO 48.6386 87.6801 68.7623 9.3539
HHO 42.8578 88.4387 65.1066 10.0066
WOA 52.1913 87.7352 67.7980 7.2528
OWOA 39.5873 81.2037 68.6655 9.5787
MWOA 0.6709 2.8779 1.5232 0.5919
F5 GWO 349422.12 61154471.90 13917815.70 14773847.41
HHO 908682.96 40302902.63 11460857.08 9399340.05
WOA 908433.10 66049057.97 14425544.03 12612418.50
OWOA 217033.97 66763826.93 15573344.57 15000513.83
MWOA 28.67 35.20 30.18 1.49
F6 GWO 653.1999 9847.4684 3470.6638 2049.0372
HHO 401.3012 8932.3663 3309.2319 2225.6513
WOA 428.0041 11684.3413 3444.8475 2367.7995
OWOA 614.8869 12021.7490 4031.6998 2412.1529
MWOA 1.8227 5.2911 3.0490 0.7831
F7 GWO 0.2415 15.1228 5.0608 3.5997
HHO 0.5489 32.6053 6.0869 7.1796
WOA 0.3649 27.5371 6.5308 6.4242
OWOA 0.1906 21.8432 5.2501 5.0464
MWOA 0.0063 0.0427 0.0200 0.0089
Multimodal benchmark functions
F8 GWO − 7032.478 4102.790
− 5557.599
− 786.324
HHO − 7317.241 2314.641
− 5608.327
− 991.232
WOA − 7087.101 3039.588
− 5596.709
− 873.760
OWOA − 7104.938 3149.864
− 5755.774
− 905.911
MWOA − 7754.161 2619.034
− 5512.106
− 1184.440
F9 GWO 53.0706 256.8202 163.7377 45.4765
HHO 39.3849 249.9558 147.4136 61.7891
WOA 59.4064 277.6196 154.1004 52.0648
OWOA 89.6525 267.7285 161.4147 47.3430
MWOA 12.8889 85.4194 37.0403 17.0665
F10 GWO 8.6412 20.4754 16.6134 4.5018
HHO 8.0793 20.4281 16.3724 4.4898
WOA 7.4183 20.4156 16.4859 4.7694
OWOA 7.7500 20.4355 17.5487 4.1757
MWOA 0.0070 0.0419 0.0234 0.0083
F11 GWO 4.3158 129.5010 34.4047 30.3355
HHO 8.6485 100.5461 30.8333 20.5751
WOA 3.5830 106.8190 28.0721 23.2865
OWOA 2.2166 127.2314 37.7233 28.9818
MWOA 0.0041 0.2642 0.0663 0.0704
F12 GWO 29.95 117001079.39 32247766.55 27712976.92
HHO 1977488.65 169990512.99 30363033.04 35380195.53
WOA 89459.13 143331149.57 25332611.70 31539630.55
OWOA 21363.56 129517620.90 32010079.23 31091525.52
MWOA 0.09 0.99 0.41 0.21
F13 GWO 66496.8 211130514.4 55044386.3 60153014.0
HHO 1482459.7 390142049.6 70904692.0 83191046.7
WOA 411910.0 238392660.3 49945964.8 49014867.0
OWOA 283.8 228860116.9 65185551.6 66179519.6
MWOA 1.2 3.5 2.3 0.6
Fixed-dimensional multimodal benchmark functions
F14 GWO 0.998011 10.763182 4.015542 3.578620
HHO 0.998930 10.763195 3.037305 2.793275
WOA 0.998012 10.763182 3.083685 2.770416
OWOA 0.998024 10.763182 3.132280 3.166460
MWOA 0.998004 15.503817 5.743785 4.761281
F15 GWO 0.000641 0.002347 0.001190 0.000489
(continued on next page)

9
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 1 (continued )
Function Algorithm Best Worst Mean Standard Deviation

HHO 0.000558 0.002159 0.001160 0.000430

WOA 0.000505 0.002217 0.001451 0.000459
OWOA 0.000498 0.002369 0.001220 0.000516
MWOA 0.000426 0.020364 0.004626 0.008004
F16 GWO − 1.031628 − 1.029865 − 1.031211 0.000487
HHO − 1.031617 − 1.030221 − 1.031307 0.000379
WOA − 1.031627 − 1.029651 − 1.031381 0.000372
OWOA − 1.031625 − 1.030056 − 1.031294 0.000413
MWOA − 1.031628 − 1.031626 − 1.031628 0.000001
F17 GWO 0.39831 0.46220 0.41490 0.01604
HHO 0.39791 0.44036 0.41008 0.01182
WOA 0.39834 0.51184 0.41058 0.02296
OWOA 0.39836 0.46961 0.40935 0.01397
MWOA 0.39789 0.47205 0.40088 0.01357
F18 GWO 3.000006 3.022665 3.003778 0.006209
HHO 3.000021 3.021229 3.003422 0.005125
WOA 3.000031 3.021471 3.003733 0.005865
OWOA 3.000042 3.012695 3.002587 0.003159
MWOA 3.000004 3.004938 3.000627 0.000939
F19 GWO − 3.86273 − 3.85574 − 3.86158 0.00190
HHO − 3.86276 − 3.85876 − 3.86146 0.00130
WOA − 3.86275 − 3.85551 − 3.86119 0.00236
OWOA − 3.86276 − 3.85640 − 3.86123 0.00181
MWOA − 3.86277 − 3.85527 − 3.86112 0.00238
F20 GWO − 3.32189 − 3.12060 − 3.27150 0.06790
HHO − 3.32193 − 3.08791 − 3.25513 0.08148
WOA − 3.32190 − 3.09474 − 3.26398 0.08062
OWOA − 3.32193 − 3.10866 − 3.26790 0.07464
MWOA − 3.32196 − 3.17371 − 3.27404 0.06416
F21 GWO − 10.14822 − 2.62381 − 7.63917 3.19635
HHO − 10.13452 − 2.62761 − 7.46034 3.56744
WOA − 10.14554 − 2.62168 − 8.86360 2.60684
OWOA − 10.13898 − 2.62762 − 7.32144 3.52888
MWOA − 10.15078 − 2.61829 − 8.61919 2.83429
F22 GWO − 10.3988 − 2.7448 − 9.1716 2.7495
HHO − 10.3988 − 2.7609 − 9.8914 1.8125
WOA − 10.3933 − 2.7608 − 9.4346 2.4567
OWOA − 10.3961 − 2.7625 − 9.8962 1.8133
MWOA − 10.4014 − 2.7634 − 9.9320 1.6612
F23 GWO − 10.52216 − 5.14777 − 10.31956 0.97701
HHO − 10.53028 − 2.04778 − 9.95089 2.09848
WOA − 10.53029 − 2.41906 − 9.74488 2.33366
OWOA − 10.52913 − 2.41991 − 9.69280 2.46571
MWOA − 10.53289 − 2.41998 − 10.23624 1.47643

reduce error: stability is seen during crucial zc startup, according to the technique.
The load curve intersects the PV curve, and the steady-state voltage
∑
N
( ( ))
minE(p) = zact (tk ) − zcal tk, p 2 (6) limitation is as shown in Eq. (7) [28].
k=1 ( )
P = Z az V2 + ai V1 + ap (7)
Where “p” is the parameter space, “E(p)” is the parameter error
function, “zact(tk)” is the actual data at tk, zcal(tk,p) is the calculated data Where Z = z*Po to achieve the value of load demand zc. Further­
at tk with parameter p which lies between − 5 to 5 and “N” is the total more, the load curve can be calculated by the following Eq. (8).
number of sampling points. √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
− ai ± ai2 − 4az (ap − P/Z)
V= (8)
2az
2.2. The nose curve for lode modelling
3. Whale optimization algorithm
Fig. 2(a) shows the voltage system stability and it demonstrates that
the loads are made up of constant components real power supply loads,
Mirjalili and Lewis [29] developed WOA to imitate the movements
on the other hand, are not constant intensity since they are made up of
and behaviors of humpbacks, who utilize an amazing feeding technique
diverse loads. To get an appropriate voltage stability margin, the load
known as the bubble-net approach while attacking their prey. They form
modeling component should be used in this curve (VSM). Fig. 2(b)
a spiral around the victim and then swim back to the top in a decreasing
shows the voltage stability margin. The loads are shown by the red line
circle. WOA creates two mathematical models to better mimic the
that represents the load curve. There are two different operating loca­
mechanism of whale predation: (1) the shrinking enclosing strategy and
tions with the same capacity but differing load demands. Voltage

10
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 2 the (2) spiral updating mechanism. These two models have the same
Implementation parameters for transmission line. chance of being used. The method first produces a randomly generated p
Single Phase Transmission Line in the range [0,1] to apply the mathematical model. Choose shrinking
enclosing strategy if p < 0. 5 and choose the spiral updating method if p
S# Distance between Conductor Radius Bundle GMR
two-line conductors diameter spacing > 0.5 the spiral updating mechanism and the shrinking enclosing
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm)

1 5. 000 3.450 1.725 300 1.3434 Table 4

2 10.000 4.560 2.280 350 1.7756 The optimum control parameters for single phase considering different bundle
3 15.000 5.200 2.600 400 2.0248 conductors.
4 20.000 6.650 3.325 450 2.5895
5 25.000 7.850 3.925 500 3.0567 No. of Iteration Capacitance per unit length Inductance per unit length
6 30.000 8.500 4.250 550 3.3099 Case Case Case 03 Case Case Case
7 35.000 9.120 4.560 600 3.5513 01 02 04 05 06
8 40.000 10.100 5.050 650 3.9329
9 45.000 11.000 5.500 700 4.2834 1 0.0218 0.3544 − 0.1500 0.6730 0.4656 0.1016
Three Phase Transmission Line 2 0.0218 0.2125 − 0.1500 0.6730 0.4656 0.1016
S# Distance between Conductor Radius Bundle GMR 3 0.0210 0.2088 − 0.1500 0.5670 0.4289 0.1016
line conductors D12, diameter Space 4 0.0210 0.2087 − 0.1500 0.5613 0.4289 0.1009
D23, D13 5 0.0210 0.2087 − 0.1501 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
(m) (cm) (cm) (cm) 6 0.0210 0.1585 − 0.1501 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
(cm) 7 0.0210 0.1239 − 0.1606 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
1 05,05,05 3.450 1.725 300 1.3434 8 0.0210 0.1239 − 0.1614 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
2 10,10,10 4.560 2.280 350 1.7756 9 0.0210 0.1165 − 0.2040 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
3 15,15,15 5.200 2.600 400 2.0248 10 0.0209 0.1165 − 0.2041 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
4 20,20,20 6.650 3.325 450 2.5895 11 0.0209 0.1165 − 0.2426 0.5613 0.4002 0.1009
5 25,25,25 7.850 3.925 500 3.0567 12 0.0209 0.1165 − 0.2426 0.5613 0.4002 0.0928
6 30,30,30 8.500 4.250 550 3.3099 13 0.0208 0.1165 − 0.2834 0.5613 0.4002 0.0928
7 35,35,35 9.120 4.560 600 3.5513 14 0.0208 0.1165 − 0.2849 0.5613 0.4002 0.0928
8 40,40,40 10.100 5.050 650 3.9329 15 0.0208 0.1165 − 0.3187 0.5613 0.4002 0.0900
9 45,45,45 11.000 5.500 700 4.2834 16 0.0207 0.1160 − 0.3229 0.5613 0.4002 0.0877
Implementation parameters of the algorithm 17 0.0207 0.1160 − 0.3415 0.5613 0.4002 0.0877
Number of Populations 30 Maximum Iterations 100 18 0.0207 0.1160 − 0.3429 0.5613 0.4002 0.0877
Number of Run time 30 No. of Dimension 5 19 0.0207 0.1159 − 0.3429 0.5613 0.4002 0.0877
20 0.0207 0.1159 − 0.3433 0.5613 0.4002 0.0877

Table 3
Comparative analysis of single-phase transmission line parameters using a different algorithm.
Capacitance per unit length (μF) Inductance per unit length (mH)
Case
Number MWOA WOA OWOA GWO [38] Case MWOA WOA OWOA GWO [38]
Number
Best solution Best solution Best solution Best solution Best solution Best solution Best solution Best solution
obtained by obtained by obtained by obtained by GWO obtained by obtained by obtained by obtained by GWO
MWOA WOA OWOA MWOA WOA OWOA

− 0.00054042 0.0008274 9.9228e-05 0.16502 0.016031 0.045689 0.4206 − 0.004868

0.4 0.3 0.3 − 0.028353 2.2 2.2 0.56225 0.59194
0.4 0.3 0.3 − 0.38607 2.2 0.018223 0.20378 0.30956
0.4 0.12684 0.3 3.8325 0.0060241 1.1924 0.62869 1.2794
− 0.0008498 0.12684 0.0041824 − 0.030792 2.2 0.031167 0.617 4.4399
Case Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Case 04 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
01 value value value value value value value value
0.020714 0.021236 0.022236 0.023193 0.56126 0.56127 0.66335 0.66295

2.4016 2.4017 − 0.00040706 − 0.00072753 0.0019159 − 0.0013215 0.41581 − 0.0051641

4.05 4.0191 4.0191 5 2.7 − 0.00693 − 0.25743 − 0.23764
0.60018 4.0191 − 0.0073446 − 0.041934 2.7 − 2.7 0.94328 − 0.17861
4.05 4.0191 − 0.0061317 1.3109 0.025649 − 0.0031558 − 0.1831 − 0.17861
− 3.123 4.0191 4.0191 0.11103 0.3809 − 2.7 − 0.17167 − 0.1681
Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
value value value value value value value value
Case 0.11561 0.11806 0.21498 0.12075 Case 05 0.40018 0.41979 0.41635 0.41614
02

2.9347 3.0019 2.9753 − 2.9355 − 0.09 − 0.08 0.08 0.17969,

5.2 4.3035 3.6549 5 − 0.09 − 0.08 − 0.08 − 0.076083
0.92385 2.4733 0.35278 − 0.15345 − 0.034339 − 0.018189 0.012067 − 0.041878
3.1071 5.1554 1.6297 − 2.215 − 0.09 − 0.08 − 0.08 − 0.00011227
− 0.07069 0.012127 4.9213 0.19516 − 0.012366 − 0.08 0.0025701 − 0.01431
Case Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Case 06 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
03 value value value value value value value value
− 0.39228 − 0.32738 − 0.30039 − 0.37565 0.081336 0.084597 0.084597 0.085861

11
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 5. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in two bundle conductors.

Fig. 6. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in three bundle conductors.

mechanism are explained as follows. →

• X p (t) shows the position of the current optimal value A
→
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⎧ →⃒⃒→ → →⃒→ → → ⃒
⎪ → → ⃒⃒ • A ⃒⃒ C . X p (t) − X (t)⃒⃒ shows the distance of the search agent to the
⎪
⎨ X p (t) − A ⃒ C . X p (t) − X (t) ⃒ifp < 0.5
→
X (t + 1) = (9) current optimal value
⎪
⎪
⎩ → bl → • b is a constant spiral shape
D .e .cos(2πl) + X p (t)ifp > 0.5
• l a numerical value between [-1, 1]
The mechanism of whale hunting may be simulated using the • p is a random value [0,1]
shrinking enclosing mechanism, which is explained as follows.
⃒ ⃒ If A < 1 The search agent can get closest to the actual best value and
→ → →⃒→ → → ⃒
X (t + 1) = X p (t) − A ⃒⃒ C . X p (t) − X (t)⃒⃒ (10) if A > 1 The search agent may randomly explore the region outside of the
current optimum value, which indicates the algorithm’s global explo­
Where → →
ration capabilities. A and C are coefficient vectors used to control the
search agent’s movement effect, which may be represented as
→
• X (t) shows the position vector

12
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 7. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in four bundle conductors.

Fig. 8. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with inductance in two bundle conductors.

→
A = 2→
a .→
r − →
a (11) populations will search for prey randomly depending on the individual’s
location. Following equation for a random search of the whale
→ population.
C = 2.→
r1 (12)
→ → →⃒⃒→ → → ⃒
⃒
Where (12) X (t + 1) = X rand (t) − A ⃒ C . X rand (t) − X (t)⃒ (13)

→ Where
• A is a random value [-1,1]
• a is a convergence factor that decreased from 2 to 0.
→
→
• X rand rand a random number between
• r random number between [0, 1],
→

The spiral updating mechanism seems to be another mathematical

In addition, in addition to reducing and confining the prey, whale

13
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 9. Convergence curve for the different algorithm with inductance in three bundle conductors.

Fig. 10. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with inductance in four bundle conductors.

concept of the whale optimization technique that may be stated as fol­
lows.
→ → → zation method to enhance the performance of a variety of metaheuristic
X (t + 1) = D .ebl .cos(2πl) + X p (t)
where
→
• Where D is a vector used to store the absolute distance which may be
computed using the following equation
⃒ ⃒
→ ⃒→ → ⃒
D = ⃒ X p (t) − X (t) ⃒ (15)
3.1. Proposed modified whale optimization algorithm (MWOA)
To better balance WOA exploration and exploitation, we suggest a
modified WOA algorithm levy fight based on which both mutation
strategy and the levy fight are incorporated. Randomization is important
in both exploitation and exploration, as well as diversity and intensifi­
cation [30]. Furthermore, the core of randomization is random shuffling
[30] which is a randomized process involving the execution of a
sequence of successive random steps. One of these randomnesses is the
Levy flight [31]. Furthermore, Levy flying has been used as an optimi­
(14) algorithms [32]. The flow chart for the proposed algorithm is presented
in Fig. 3 It is worth noting that Levy flight is a randomized process that
follows the Levy distribution provided in the following formula:
Levy(s) |s|− 1− β
, β ∈ (0, 2) (16)
where β is an exponential function that determines the shape of Levy
distribution and s is a random step, which can be
expressed in the following form:
μ
s= , (17)
|v|(1/β)
with μ and υ being parameters subject to the normal distribution, i.e.
~ N(0, σ2 μ) and υ ~ N(0, σ 2]). The expressions for σμ and σ ] are given as
follows:

14
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 5
Comparative analysis of three phase transmission line parameters using a different algorithm.
Capacitance per unit length (μF) Inductance per unit length (mH)

MWOA WOA OWOA GWO [38] MWOA WOA OWOA GWO [38]
Case The best The best The best The best solution The best solution The best The best The best solution
Number Case
solution solution solution obtained by obtained by solution solution obtained by GWO
Number
obtained by obtained by obtained by GWO MWOA obtained by obtained by
MWOA WOA OWOA WOA OWOA

0.89 0.00035548 − 9.9726e-05 0.15084 − 0.00033273 0.80787 0.026509 0.1128

0.89 3.3053e-07 1.3242e-05 − 0.0020446 1.01 0.80787 1.01 0.02587
− 0.1058 0.01 0.02 0.57367 1.01 0.027355 0.008789 − 0.00083968
0.63002 − 1.6292e-06 7.1208e-05 0.00040637 − 0.0077453 0.64229 − 0.7393 − 0.0331
0.21419 0.00026901 0.02 − 0.10258 1.01 0.80787 − 0.3949 − 0.010738
Case Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Case 10 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
07 value value value value value value value value
0.22482 0.22994 0.22987 0.22634 0.66063 0.67544 0.66063 0.78216

0.9 0.8 0.82 0.0002513 0.084468 0.047833 0.075819 0.0016384

0.9 0.8 0.82 0.64927 0.078318 0.078476 0.078353 0.00040086
0.7297 0.009595 0.82 0.16326 1.1759 0.024155 1.2853 − 0.0091361
0.9 0.8 0.040441 − 0.020375 0.31235 0.020621 1.2851 − 1.6945e-06
Case 0.9 0.8 0.82 − 0.0020859 Case 11 0.067408 0.067162 − 0.2024 2.3496e-05
08 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
value value value value value value value value
0.023713 0.025411 0.025096 0.027884 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43
1.02 1.001 1.002 1 − 1.1 − 1.1 − 1.1 1,
1.02 1.001 1.002 1 − 1.1 − 1.1 − 1.1 − 1
1.02 1.001 1.002 − 0.018757 − 1.0904 − 0.60485 − 1.1 − 1
1.02 0.6324 − 0.072711 0.51761 − 1.1 − 1.1 0.024574 − 0.38073
Case 1.02 1.001 0.091059 − 0.48557 − 1.1 − 1.1 − 1.1 0.0076602
09 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Case 12 Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal Best optimal
value value value value value value value value
0.0051332 0.0066268 0.0065493 0.0067042 − 0.66622 − 0.65623 − 0.64622 − 0.57457

( )
Γ(1 + β).sinπ β/2
σμ = 1/β
(18) Table 6
Γ(1 + β/2).β.2(β− 1/2)
Optimum control parameters runs for three phase considering different bundle
conductors.
σν = 1 (19)
No. of Capacitance per unit length Inductance per unit length
Where Γ stands for the gamma function. Iteration
Case 07 Case 08 Case Case 10 Case 11 Case
09 12
3.1.1. Framework of MWOA 1 0.2261 0.0280 0.0200 0.6688 0.4328 − 0.4930
The flowchart of the proposed MWOA is presented in Fig. 3. In 2 0.2250 0.0239 0.0200 0.6688 0.4327 − 0.6506
MWOA, Levy flight is used to enhance algorithm performance and 3 0.2250 0.0239 0.0122 0.6688 0.4320 − 0.6662
prevent slipping into a local optimum. To update the populations, 4 0.2250 0.0239 0.0122 0.6688 0.4313 − 0.6662
5 0.2250 0.0239 0.0113 0.6606 0.4299 0.6662
MWOA uses the standard whale optimization algorithm’s fundamental −
6 0.2250 0.0239 0.0113 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
approach. So, Levy flying works as follows. In Eq. (20), the Levy-variated 7 0.2248 0.0239 0.0113 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
individual Vi is produced, and its fitness f(Vi) is computed. If f(Vi) 8 0.2248 0.0239 0.0113 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
performs f (), Vi replaces Xi. A leader pos is the current optimum solu­ 9 0.2248 0.0239 0.0112 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
tion, and a constant coefficient of 0.75 and 1.5 is used in Eq. (20). 10 0.2248 0.0239 0.0112 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
11 0.2248 0.0239 0.0111 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
Vi = Xiα.Levy(β) ⊕ (Xi − bestsearchagent) (20) 12 0.2248 0.0239 0.0111 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
13 0.2248 0.0239 0.0107 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
14 0.2248 0.0239 0.0107 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
3.1.2. Time complexity Analysis. 15 0.2248 0.0239 0.0101 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
The time complexity of the algorithm is a function that defines its 16 0.2248 0.0239 0.0088 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
execution time. Time complexity is typically represented as large O. The 17 0.2248 0.0239 0.0058 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
18 0.2248 0.0239 0.0051 0.6606 0.4296 0.6662
number of operational units of the algorithms is typically approximated −
19 0.2248 0.0239 0.0051 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
to determine time complexity. So, the algorithm’s overall running time 20 0.2248 0.0239 0.0051 0.6606 0.4296 − 0.6662
and the number of operational units vary by a constant factor. The
temporal complexity of an optimization method is linked to the number
and design of its operation units [33]. The temporal complexity of the Step 1: Initialize the generating number, the max number of itera­
WOA is determined by the number of candidate solutions, iterations, tions, the size of the population, the space dimensionality, and the
and location update method. The temporal complexity of MWOA is search area.
determined by the number of candidate solutions, iterations, and Step 2: initialize random whale populations
improvement methods. The temporal complexities of WOA and MWOA Step 3: compute the value of whale fitness and select optimal agent
were evaluated to assess the enhanced strategy’s effect on algorithm Step 4: Calculate the number of whales using Eqs. (9)–(15).
running costs. After running the program through MATLAB 30 times.
The suggested technique is initially categorized into different steps:

15
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 11. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in two bundle conductors.

Fig. 12. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in three bundle conductors.

Step 5: Levy flight: obtain the variation using Eq. (20), then increase
the populations if V’s fitness is better than the actual. Bring fresh
whales back if someone crosses the threshold.
Step 6: Repeat steps 3–6 till the exit criterion is satisfied, then return
Leader pos.
Then comes the complexity of the algorithm analysis. Steps 3–6 are
the most time-consuming in MWOA.
As a result, the total time complexity of MWOA (O(MWOA) = O
(population initialization) + G (O (fitness evaluation) + O (whales up­
date)) + O (the Levy flight strategy). With n individuals within a pop­
ulation, the initialization takes O (n* d) time, while calculating the
fitness of individuals whale in the population takes O (G*(nd) time.
Furthermore, modifying the whales’ position is O (G (6nd + 7n)). As a
result, the original WOA’s temporal complexity is O (n*d) + O (G(n*d))
+ O (G *(6nd + 7n)). Furthermore, the Levy flight method has a time
complexity of O (G (nd + nd + 4n). As a result, MWOA’s time complexity
is about equivalent to O (nd) + O (G (9nd + 11n)). Based on the big O

16
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 13. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with capacitance in four bundle conductors.

Fig. 14. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with inductance in two bundle conductors.

notation, both the suggested MWOA and the conventional WOA have a ⎛ ⎞
complexity of O (nd). ∑
N− 1
⎜0.056⎟
ΔC1 = ⎝ d ⎠ (22)
i=1
ln r
4. Transmission line parameters in mathematical form

This article addressed single-phase and three-phase transmission line 4.2. Three phase transmission line
parameters and measured capacitance and inductance values using a
whale optimization algorithm following the mathematical model [34].
N− 1 (
∑ )
d
ΔL2 = 0.2ln (23)
r
4.1. Single phase transmission line i=1

⎛ ⎞
∑
N− 1
⎜0.056⎟
N− 1 ( )
∑ d ΔC2 = ⎝ d ⎠ (24)
ΔL1 = 0.2ln (21) i=1
ln r
i=1
r

17
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Fig. 15. Convergence curve for the different algorithm with inductance in three bundle conductors.

Where
Table 7
Statistical analysis of single-phase transmission line. • d is the distance between the conductors
MWOA WOA OWOA GWO • r represents the geometric mean radius
Case 01 • N represents the total number of assumptions
Best 0.020956 0.021236 0.022236 0.023193
Worst 0.022235 0.023242 0.021359 0.025212 5. Results and discussion
Mean 0.0212 0.0219 0.0219 0.0219
No. of Hits 24 21 21 20
Standard Deviation 7.2926e-04 9.6180e-04 4.2049e-04 9.6804e-04 Metaheuristics are inherently stochastic in nature which primarily
Computational time 1.502133 s 1.567195 s 1.620064 s 1.586680 s means that they would show performance variation in the different runs
Case 02 while generating optimal solutions. Hence the potency of the proposed
Best 0.11561 0.11806 0.21498 0.12075 MWOA technique is demonstrated in this section by performing various
Worst 0.11604 0.20865 0.26062 0.18467
Mean 2.0617e-04 0.0434 0.0219 0.0306
simulation studies. The developed program is implemented on a 2.90
No. of Hits 24 20 23 21 GHz, i5 personal computer with 8 GB RAM, and simulations are carried
Standard Deviation 8.4865e-04 0.0427 0.0215 0.0301 out by using MATLAB 2020a.
Computational time 1.517709 s 1.602584 s 1.573719 s 1.575493 s
Case 03
Best − 0.39228 − 0.32738 − 0.30039 − 0.37565
5.1. Performance test of algorithms on benchmark functions
Worst − 0.34791 − 0.27625 − 0.24208 − 0.34122
Mean − 0.3775 − 0.3103 − 0.2810 − 0.3642 To find the best solution for a given problem, every metaheuristic
No. of Hits 25 22 24 23 algorithm is necessarily stochastic, which means that results vary be­
Standard Deviation 0.0213 0.0245 0.0280 0.0165
tween runs. To determine the proposed algorithm’s suitability and ef­
Computational time 1.576375 s 1.614740 s 1.588397 s 1.590513 s
Case 04 ficacy, it was evaluated on a set of benchmark functions. For the
Best 0.56126 0.56127 0.66335 0.66295 proposed MWOA method, the authors deployed a series of 23 bench­
Worst 0.66296 0.68185 0.74335 0.73335 mark functions widely used by many researchers. The functions F1–F7
Mean 0.5952 0.6015 0.6900 0.6864 are known as unimodal functions as they have only one global optimum
No. of Hits 26 21 24 22
Standard Deviation 0.0488 0.0578 0.0384 0.0338
rather than several local ones. F8-F13 are multimodal benchmark
Computational time 1.560472 s 1.625194 s 1.570525 s 1.613013 s functions and finally from F14-F23 are Fixed-dimensional multimodal
Case 05 benchmark functions. Any metaheuristic method’s manipulation po­
Best 0.40018 0.41979 0.41635 0.41614 tential is determined by these functions. The functions F8–F23, on the
Worst 0.42944 0.42941 0.43926 0.43912
other hand, will have one global optimum and several local optima,
Mean 0.4099 0.4230 0.4213 0.4220
No. of Hits 24 23 24 21 determining the metaheuristic method’s exploration capability. Fig. 4
Standard Deviation 0.0140 0.0046 0.0071 0.0085 illustrates the effects of the suggested techniques for the 23 benchmark
Computational time 1.534061 s 1.572688 s 1.551181 s 1.613296 s functions F1–F23.
Case 06 Fig. 4a shows a two-dimensional (2D) representation of the 3D
Best 0.081336 0.084597 0.084597 0.085861
Worst 0.083492 0.086191 0.086161 0.087121
parameter space, Fig. 4b shows the proposed technique’s convergence
Mean 0.0821 0.0851 0.0851 0.0863 characteristics with respect to the number of iterations, and Fig. 4c
No. of Hits 25 23 24 22 shows the statistical analysis of the benchmark function. The conver­
Standard Deviation 0.0010 7.6426e-04 7.4988e-04 6.0412e-04 gence characteristics are plotted using the mean values of optimal values
Computational time 1.566768 s 1.586194 s 1.585147 s 1.577511 s
for each iteration’s 30 different runs and the proposed algorithm’s
mixed behavior of integrated algorithms, which resulted in effective

18
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 16. Convergence curve for the different algorithms with inductance in four bundle conductors.
system efficiency. Table 1 shows the results of the statistical study using
the proposed methodology on the benchmark functions. The proposed
methodology is compared to other recent approaches using the same
algorithm parameters of population size 30 and the total number of it­
erations 100. The mean value (Fmean), worst (Fworst) and best (Fbest), and
standard deviation (FSD) optimal values obtained over 30 individual
runs are all mentioned in Table 1. According to the statistical data in
Table 1, the MWOA technique’s variants generated optimal values for
the most significant number of cases than the base algorithm. In various
types of functions, the proposed MWOA provided satisfactory results. A
boxplot over different runs, which displays the distribution of optimal
values obtained over different runs, can determine the accuracy of
different algorithms [39]. The maximum and minimum values are
shown as a cross mark at the top and bottom of the boxplot, respectively,
while the rectangular box represents the region where half of the values
(50%) are found. The distribution of optimal values obtained over
various runs can be seen, and the proposed techniques can be used to
avoid being trapped in local optima.
5.2. Application of proposed algorithm in 1-phase and 3-phase
transmission line
In today’s world, power generation and transmission systems are
operating under an increasingly stressed state, and power losses are
increasing as a result of rising demand, environmental and economic or
financial restrictions, as well as the competitive energy industry. As a
result, there are some requirements to improve electricity needs, the
standard of power, and ideally the growth of power system, as well as
the problems of global warming to the environment [35]. According to
[36], the main function of the electric transmission and distribution
networks is to transport electrical energy from its source to its point of
consumption. Furthermore, load modeling is critical in the operation of
the electrical network. Load modeling methods such as static or dynamic
models are used to compute load. Nowadays due to the adoption of
demand management and energy-saving technologies such as smart
appliances, loads have grown insignificance. However, the most
commonly utilized load models are out of date and unable to accurately
reflect new load scenarios. Many shifting load components, such as the
absence of precise load composition data and stochastic, time-varying,
and environmentally load behavior, make load modeling difficult to
accomplish. [37] The ZIP and composites models are presently two of
19
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
the most frequently utilized models in the United States power sector.
The load model is a more complicated model that strives to strike a
balance between flexibility and complexity. However, the categoriza­
tion of a huge number of unknown characteristics continues to be a
difficult task. The least-square method is presented to optimize the
comparison of computed and measured values between two variables.
Moreover, the Thevenin equivalent (TE) circuit is used to determine the
voltage system stability of the load modeling equations.
The essential parameters of the 1-phase and 3-phase transmission
lines are provided in Table 2. The application of the proposed work is
divided into two sections i.e., in 1-phase and 3-phase transmission lines.
In single phase transmission line, authors have considered 6 cases and
three phase transmission line, authors have considered another 6 cases.
5.2.1. Single phase transmission line
Case 1: Single phase transmission line with capacitance for two
bundle conductors
The suggested method is initially used to estimate the characteristics
of a single-phase transmission line capacitance. Table 3 contains the
optimum values of the parameters of this OHTL that have been deter­
mined to be the best. As previously stated, the suggested method may
estimate the OHTL parameters by using the capacitance of two bundle
conductors. Under the flow chart in Fig. 3, the MWOA is utilized to es­
timate the OHTL parameters, and the method is as follows: In this case
analysis, the MWOA converges at the iteration of the algorithm 100 with
a minimum fitness function of 0.020714 the estimated OHTL parameters
while the control parameters are included in Table 4. It has been noticed
that the suggested method can estimate the OHTL parameters with great
accuracy, compared to other optimization techniques. The results in
Table 3 further demonstrate that the suggested method can estimate the
parameters of the OHTL by using MWOA. Fig. 4 shows the convergence
curve for this situation. Overall, it can be observed that there is a good
agreement, which confirms the robustness of the suggested MWOA in
terms of parameter estimation for OHTL.
Case 2: Single phase transmission line with capacitance for three
bundle conductors
Table 3 provides MWOA for single-phase results with three bundle
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 8 its optimum value. The best optimal value is given in Table 3 and the
Statistical analysis of three-phase transmission line. control variable is presented in Table 4. These outcomes demonstrate
MWOA WOA OWOA GWO that the suggested method for estimating the parameters of OHTL of
various bundle conductors has a high degree of accuracy. According to
Case 07
Best 0.22482 0.22994 0.22987 0.22634 Table 3, a summary of the parameter’s computation for the four bundle
Worst 0.22911 0.23881 0.23991 0.23221 conducts-based estimated OHTL parameters is provided. This shows that
Mean 0.2263 0.2329 0.2332 0.2291 the produced results based on the estimated line parameters and real
No. of Hits 26 22 23 19 data are in excellent agreement. The best solution for this case is
Standard Deviation 0.0021 0.0043 0.0048 0.0028
Computational time 1.555350 s 1.573849 s 1.582424 s 1.607324 s
− 3.9288.
(s)
Case 08 Case 4: Single phase transmission line with inductance for two
Best 0.023713 0.025411 0.025096 0.027884 bundle conductors
Worst 0.027127 0.027344 0.027077 0.027079
Mean 0.0249 0.0261 0.0258 0.0276
No. of Hits 25 24 21 22 Single-phase transmission line inductance is shown in Fig. 7, which
Standard Deviation 0.0016 9.2680e- 9.4982e- 4.6831e-04 shows the convergence curve. For the parameter estimation of OHTL
04 04 taking into account, two bundle inductance was carried out using the
Computational time 1.582235 s 1.605629 s 1.578189 s 1.590375 s suggested MWOA, and the most optimum value was recorded for each
Case 09
Best 0.0051332 0.0066268 0.0065493 0.0067042
parameter. And discovered that the most optimum value, taking into
Worst 0.0060233 0.0073493 0.0071225 0.00712187 account the is 0.56126. Table 3 provides a summary of the best optimum
Mean 0.0054 0.0069 0.0067 0.0068 value achieved using MWOA, and Table 4 provides the control param­
No. of Hits 26 23 20 21 eters used in this study.Fig. 8 shows convergence curve of different
Standard Deviation 4.2677e- 3.4641e- 2.7459e- 2.0026e-04
optimizations techniques for inductance with two bundle conductors.
04 04 04
Computational time 1.567314 s 1.580133 s 1.601324 s 1.590224 s
Case 10 Case 5: Single phase transmission line with inductance for three
Best 0.66063 0.67544 0.66063 0.78216 bundle conductors
Worst 0.74231 0.75112 0.76114 0.83231
Mean 0.6860 0.6989 0.6918 0.7977
An inductance conductors problem with three bundles is used to test
No. of Hits 24 23 20 21
Standard Deviation 0.0385 0.0356 0.0473 0.0236 the feasibility of the proposed MWOA techniques. The research’s input
Computational time 1.574038 s 1.649339 s 1.588661 s 1.581750 s data are listed in Table 2. The most acceptable solution for this problem
Case 11 is 0.40018 so far. There are 30 trials presented in Table 3 that demon­
Best 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43
strate that the proposed MWOA methodology produces better solutions
Worst 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Mean 0.4300 0.4300 0.4433 0.4367 than those published in the literature and offers better statistical results
No. of Hits 23 22 22 20 than traditional WOA, OWOA, and GWO techniques, according to the
Standard Deviation 0.0144 0.0144 0.0048 0.0096 table. It’s also worth noting that the average CPU execution time for
Computational time 1.558060 s 1.635325 s 1.567437 s 1.568797 s MWOA is less than the other methods. Table 4 shows the control vari­
Case 12
able obtained by MWOA. According to the obtained results, the pro­
Best − 0.66622 − 0.65623 − 0.65623 − 0.57457
Worst − 0.61111 − 0.61212 − 0.61301 − 0.52321 posed MWOA beats all other methods. It is shown in Fig. 10 that utilizing
Mean − 0.6478 − 0.6415 − 0.6418 − 0.5574 three bundle conductors and the proposed MWOA techniques, the
No. of Hits 25 24 21 22 parameter estimation of transmission line inductance may be improved
Standard Deviation 0.0264 0.0211 0.0207 0.0246
over the traditional WOA approach. A comparison of the proposed
Computational time 1.558309 1.631300 s 1.566509 s 1.577844 s
MWOA method with WOA, OWOA, and GWO is shown in Fig. 10.

conductors, and Table 4 presents the control variables for the trans­
mission line capacitance result with three bundle conductors, the results
of the optimal parameters calculated by MWOA are shown in Table 3.
Consequently, the proposed MWOA can calculate capacitance, showing
the flexibility of the method. That the MWOA technique is appropriate
for the calculation of transmission line parameters is shown by the re­
sults of this study. When measuring the capacitance of three bundle
conductors, the suggested method for estimating the parameters of the
OHTL of Fig. 5 is evaluated for its effectiveness. Specifically, when it
comes to transmission line capacitance, the results obtained using the
MWOA algorithms and the results obtained using different conventional
methods are very similar and the best-obtained solution is 0.11561.
Case 3: Single phase transmission line with capacitance for four
bundle conductors
The simulation of four bundle conductors OHTLs of a single-phase
depicted in Fig. 6 is carried out in MATLAB/Simulink to determine the
efficiency of the suggested method for estimating the parameters of the
conductors. The suggested MWOA employs a four-bundle conductors
convergence curve, which is like the one used in the preceding case
study, to estimate the OHTL parameters. With a maximum of 100 iter­
ation steps, the MWOA utilized in this estimation method is adjusted to
Case 6: Single phase transmission line with inductance for four
bundle conductors
A single-phase transmission line inductance conductors problem
with four bundles is utilized to evaluate the viability of the suggested
MWOA methods. Table 2 contains the input data for this research. So far,
the best solution for this issue has been reported as 0.081336. However,
taking into account the 30 experiments shown in Table 3, According to
Table 3, the suggested MWOA technique generates better solutions than
those published in the literature and provides superior statistical results
than the conventional WOA, OWOA, and GWO methods. Furthermore, it
can be observed that the average CPU execution time needed by MWOA
is shorter than that of the techniques described above. The aforemen­
tioned findings clearly show that the suggested MWOA outperforms
alternative techniques. Fig. 9 shows the parameter estimate of trans­
mission line inductance using four bundle conductors produced by the
suggested MWOA methods to demonstrate the improvement in
convergence property of the proposed MWOA compared to the con­
ventional WOA method. Fig. 9 clearly shows that the suggested MWOA
technique outperforms WOA, OWOA, and GWO in terms of conver­
gence. Furthermore, Table 4 shows the control variable obtained by
MWOA.

20
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 17. Single phase transmission line fitness value of the proposed algorithm. (a)two bundle capacitance (b) three bundle capacitance (c) four bundle capacitance
(d) two bundle inductance (e) three bundle inductance (f) four bundle inductance.
5.2.2. Three phase transmission line
Case 7: Three phase transmission line with capacitance for two
bundle conductors
The parameters estimation issue for a three-phase transmission line
with capacitance for two bundle conductors is studied using 100
maximum iterations. The most optimum solution for two bundle
capacitance is 0.22482 for three phase, Table 5 provides a comparative
analysis of three phase capacitance along with other optimization
methods, and Table 6 presents control variables generated using MWOA.
Fig. 10 shows the convergence curve for three phase transmission line
capacitance considering two bundle conductors.
Case 8: Three phase transmission line with capacitance for three
bundle conductors
Table 5 provides the comparative test result by analyzing three phase
transmission line capacitance for three bundle conductors test per­
formed, that is, proposed MGWO and selected best optimal value that is
0.023713. The analysis is executed by MATLAB coding each optimiza­
tion algorithm has been executed 30 times. Furthermore, Table 6 shows
the control variable obtained by MWOA. Fig. 11 shows the convergence
curve of the proposed WMOA.
Case 9: Three phase transmission line with capacitance for four
bundle conductors
A three phase transmission line with capacitance for four bundle
conductors is examined in this case study to validate the efficacy of the
suggested MWOA technique. To verify the efficiency of the suggested
techniques, the MWOA findings are compared to those published in the
21
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
literature for WOA, OWOA, and GWO. Table 5 shows the lowest val­
ue for each of the 30 trials utilizing the MWOA, WOA, OWOA, and GWO
techniques, demonstrating that the MWOA approach provides the
lowest capacitance value when compared to the GWO and other
methods. It indicates that, although both MWOA’s performance is
acceptable, These findings are also compared to other optimization
techniques to determine superiority. Table 5 shows that MWOA requires
less CPU time than other techniques. It denotes that the suggested
MWOA technique is more resilient than the other methods described
before. Fig. 12 shows the convergence situation for the proposed MWOA
techniques with iterations for a three-phase transmission line with
capacitance for four bundle conductors. It is possible to infer that the
convergence of MWOA techniques has superior exploration and
exploitation capability. The control variable produced via three phase
line capacitance is shown in Table 6, and the most optimum value is
0.0051332.
Case 10: Three phase transmission line with inductance for two
bundle conductors
This case study tests the MWOA method on a three phase trans­
mission line inductance for two bundle conductors. The MWOA results
are compared to those reported in the literature for WOA, OWOA, and
GWO. On the other hand, the MWOA methodology offers the lowest
inductance value when compared to GWO and other approaches as
mention in Table 5. While MWOA’s performance is satisfactory when
they are compared to other optimization methods to evaluate the effi­
ciency. It means the MWOA approach is more robust than the other
techniques. A three-phase transmission line inductance for two bundle
conductors is shown in Fig. 13. The confluence of MWOA methods may
provide better exploration and exploitation. As shown in Table 5,
MWOA can be used to do a comparative study of various methods, and
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
Fig. 18. Three phase transmission line fitness value of the proposed algorithm two bundle capacitance (b) three bundle capacitance (c) four bundle capacitance (d)
two bundle inductance (e) three bundle inductance (f) four bundle inductance.
the most optimum value of 0.66063 is achieved by utilizing MWOA.
Case 11: Three phase transmission line with inductance for three
bundle conductors
MWOA method iterations are shown in Fig. 14, which shows the
three-phase transmission line inductance computed using three bundle
conductors for each iteration of the algorithm, with the optimum
minimization solution being determined in each iteration. The usage of
MWOA may be utilized to conduct a comparative analysis of different
techniques, as shown in Table 5 and Table 6 shows the control param­
eters obtained using MWOA. The most optimal value of 0.42 is obtained
when the number of search agents is 30, and this is accomplished by
using MWOA. Fig. 15 shows convergence curve of different optimiza­
tions techniques for inductance with three bundle conductors.
Case 12: Three phase transmission line with inductance for four
bundle conductors
The MWOA technique is tested on a three-phase transmission line
inductance for four bundle conductors in this case study. The MWOA
results are compared to WOA, OWOA, and GWO methods. In compari­
son to GWO and other methods, the MWOA methodology provides the
lowest inductance value − 0.66622, as shown in Table 5. The perfor­
mance of MWOA is acceptable it implies that the MWOA method is more
reliable than the others. Fig. 14 depicts a three-phase transmission line
inductance for two bundle conductors. The modification in WOA tech­
niques may allow for more effective exploration and exploitation as
indicated in Table 5 and Table 6 shows the control variable using
MWOA.
22
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
5.3. Statistical analysis of single phase transmission line with capacitance
and inductance
To demonstrate the suggested algorithm’s efficacy, GWO, OWOA,
WOA and the proposed MWO method are compared for Cases 01–06.
Tables 7 illustrate the quantitative comparison of methods using mean
and standard deviation for capacitance and inductance correspondingly.
The MWOA results in Table 7 are notable for single-phase transmission
lines with just one global optimum. This proves the suggested algo­
rithm’s exploitative potential. Performance with single-phase is impor­
tant, since these functions include numerous local optima, revealing the
algorithm’s ability to avoid local optima. Thus, MWOA’s good perfor­
mance shows its ability to properly balance exploration and exploita­
tion, making it appropriate for real optimization problems. In Fig. 16,
the rectangular box represents the area where 50% of data are discov­
ered. There are 30 results for each algorithm in the boxplot. The median
divides the box, while the upper and lower quartiles determine the box’s
ends. The box plot increases the reliability of all methods across multi­
ple runs and the distribution of optimum values. The suggested method
surpassed existing algorithms in both qualitative and quantitative re­
sults. Table 7 show that the suggested MWOA may provide a better
quality outcome. The authors proceeded to apply the suggested method
for addressing the transmission line parameter issue after modifying
WOA.
5.4. Statistical analysis of three phase transmission line with capacitance
and inductance
To show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, GWO, OWOA,
WOA, and the novel MWO technique are evaluated for Cases 07–12.
Table 8 provides a quantitative comparison of techniques for capaci­
tance and inductance, respectively, using mean and standard deviation.
M. Suhail Shaikh et al. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893

Table 9
Comparison of the proposed algorithm.
Properties Algorithm

Whale Grey Wolf Cuckoo Search Genetic Particle swarm Harmony Tabu Harris hawk’s Slime mould Intelligent
Optimization Optimization (CS) Algorithm optimization search (HS) Search optimization algorithm water drops
Algorithm (GWO) (GA) (PSO) (HHO) (SMA) algorithm
(WOA) (IWD)
(TS)

Propose Mirjalili Miralili Yang and Deb Hooland Kennedy Geem et al. Glover Ali Asghar Shimin Li Shah-
[46] Heidari Hosseini
[63] [73]
[26] [43] [52] [58] [68] [76] [78]
Parameter two two Three [47] Three Five Three Two Two Two Two
[40] [43] [53] [59] [64] [69] [70] [76] [79]
Complexity O wing O (LJm) O (n.D.tmax) O(m2) O (nm2) wang O (HMS X O (mn2) O (N) s O (N * (1 + MRMC-IWD
[41] [44] et al. M + HMS X T * N * (1 +
log (HMS) log N + 2
[48] [65] *D)))
[79]
[54] [60] [70] [74]
[76]
good rate good rate Slow rate Fast rate quickly rate good good good rate Fast rate Fast rate
Convergence [49]
[41] [44] [55] [61] [66] [71] [74] [76] [80]
Strength A balance A balance Balancing Dealing in a Don’t have Enhance the Stop exploration and switches A balance
between between Intensification diverse health simultaneous variety of getting exploitation between the between
exploration and exploration and and world and mutation innovative stuck at phases exploration exploration
exploration exploration diversification estimates ideas the virtual and and
design design [50] peak exploration exploration

[41] [45] [56] [67] [74]

[62] [72] [81]
[76]
Weaknesses Lower Unsatisfactory Stop getting The Suffering from Start Needs The variable low Delay in
convergence abo ability of stuck at the measurement partial squeezing at Large “E” cannot flexibility processing
precision local search virtual peak is fairly costly motivation the area Memory be>1 in the and weak time
optimum Tool second half of robustness
the iteration
[75]

[51]
[57]
[45]
[42] [62] [67] [72] [82]
[77]

Table 7 shows MWOA results for single-phase transmission lines with a
single global optimum. This demonstrates the algorithm’s exploitative
potential. Three-phase performance is significant since these functions
contain many local optima, showing the algorithm’s ability to avoid
local optima. The excellent performance of MWOA demonstrates its
ability to appropriately balance exploration and exploitation, making it
suitable for actual optimization issues. The rectangular rectangle in
Fig. 17 shows the area where 50% of the data is found. In the boxplot,
there are 30 outcomes for each algorithm. The box is divided by the
median, and its ends are determined by the upper and lower quartiles.
The box plot improves the consistency of all techniques over many runs,
as well as the distribution of optimal values. In both anecdotal and
quantitative findings, the proposed approach outperformed current al­
gorithms. Tables 8 demonstrate that the proposed MWOA may result in a
higher quality outcome. After updating WOA, the authors proceeded to
use the proposed MWOA for resolving transmission line parameter is­
sues. The rectangular rectangle in Fig. 18 shows the area where 50% of
the data is found. In the boxplot, there are 30 outcomes for each
algorithm.
Finally, Table 9 shows the comparison of the proposed algorithm in
terms of convergence, complexity, and weakness.
algorithm that is based on the movements and behaviours of hump­
backs. This study proposes MWOA which is based on levy flights. The
effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is endorsed by implementing it
on 23 benchmark functions to measure effectiveness with respect to
exploration and exploitation. The proposed technique provides better
results when compared with other contemporary algorithms. Further,
the proposed technique is applied in determining the optimal parameter
setting of the overhead transmission lines while considering the
different numbers of bundle conductors for the inductance and capaci­
tance. The box plot and statistical test validate that the proposed algo­
rithm is effective, swift, efficacious, and versatile for solving parameter
estimation of transmission lines. From the results, it can be concluded
that the MWOA technique provides more accuracy and reliability to
obtain global or near-global optimal settings of control variables.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

References
6. Conclusions
[1] Naderi E, Pourakbari-Kasmaei M, Lehtonen M. Transmission expansion planning
A whale optimization algorithm is a heuristic stochastic optimization integrated with wind farms: A review, comparative study, and a novel profound

23
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
search approach. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2020;115:105460. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105460.
[2] Zivanovic, Rastko. “Estimation of transmission line parameters using fault
records.” AUPEC, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia (2006): 10-13.
[3] Yuan Liao, Kezunovic M. Online optimal transmission line parameter estimation
for relaying applications. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 2009;24(1):96–102.
[4] Abu-Siada A, Mosaad MI, Mir S. Voltage–current technique to identify fault
location within long transmission lines. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2020;14(23):
5588–96.
[5] Stevenson Jr, William, and John Grainger. Power system analysis. McGraw-Hill
Education, 1994.
[6] Chan SM. Computing overhead line parameters. IEEE Comput Appl Power 1993;6
(1):43–5.
[7] Dommel H. Overhead line parameters from handbook formulas and computer
programs. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems 1985;2:366–72.
[8] Ansari, Muhammad Mohsin, et al. “A review of technical methods for distributed
systems with distributed generation (DG).” 2019 2nd International Conference on
Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET). IEEE, 2019.
[9] Ansari MM, Guo C, Shaikh M, Chopra N, Yang Bo, Pan J, et al. Considering the
uncertainty of hydrothermal wind and solar-based DG. Alexandria Engineering
Journal 2020;59(6):4211–36.
[10] Shaikh MS, Hua C, Jatoi MA, Ansari MM, Qader AA. “Parameter Estimation of AC
Transmission Line Considering Different Bundle Conductors Using Flux Linkage
TechniqueEstimation des paramètres d’une ligne de transmission à courant
alternatif en tenant compte de différents conducteurs de faisceau à l’aide de la
technique de liaison de flux. IEEE Can J Electr Comput Eng 2021;44(3):313–20.
[11] Kurokawa S, Pissolato J, Tavares MC, Portela CM, Prado AJ. A New Procedure to
Derive Transmission-Line Parameters: Applications and Restrictions. IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery 2006;21(1):492–8.
[12] Chen C-S, Liu C-W, Jiang J-A. A new adaptive PMU based protection scheme for
transposed/untransposed parallel transmission lines. IEEE Trans Power Delivery
2002;17(2):395–404.
[13] Masoum AS, Hashemnia N, Abu-Siada A, Masoum MAS, Islam SM. Online
transformer internal fault detection based on instantaneous voltage and current
measurements considering impact of harmonics. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 2017;
32(2):587–98.
[14] Costa ECM, Kurokawa S. Estimation of transmission line parameters using multiple
methods. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2015;9(16):2617–24.
[15] Kurokawa S, Costa ECM, Pissolato J, Prado AJ, Bovolato LF. Proposal of a
transmission line model based on lumped elements: an analytic solution. Electr
Power Compon Syst 2010;38(14):1577–94.
[16] Abu-Siada A, Mir S. A new on-line technique to identify fault location within long
transmission lines. Eng Fail Anal 2019;105:52–64.
[17] Soldevilla, Fermín Rafael Cabezas, and Franklin Alfredo Cabezas Huerta.
“Estimation of transmission lines parameters using particle swarm
optimization.” 2018 IEEE PES Transmission & Distribution Conference and Exhibition-
Latin America (T&D-LA). IEEE, 2018.
[18] Abu-Siada A, Mosaad MI, Kim D, El-Naggar MF. Estimating power transformer high
frequency model parameters using frequency response analysis. IEEE Trans Power
Delivery 2020;35(3):1267–77.
[19] Mosaad MI, Ramadan HSM, Aljohani M, El-Naggar MF, Ghoneim SSM. “Near-
Optimal PI Controllers of STATCOM for Efficient Hybrid Renewable Power System.
IEEE Access 2021;9:34119–30.
[20] El-Naggar MF, Mosaad MI, Hasanien HM, AbdulFattah TA, Bendary AF. Elephant
herding algorithm-based optimal PI controller for LVRT enhancement of wind
energy conversion systems. Ain Shams Eng J 2021;12(1):599–608.
[21] Mosaad, Mohamed I, and Nehmdoh A. Sabiha. “Ferroresonance Overvoltage
Mitigation using STATCOM for Grid-Connected Wind Energy Conversion
Systems.” Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy (2021).
[22] Guedes JJ, Castoldi MF, Goedtel A, Agulhari CM, Sanches DS. Parameters
estimation of three-phase induction motors using differential evolution. Electr
Power Syst Res 2018;154:204–12.
[23] Yan Z, Li C, Song Z, Xiong L, Luo C. “An improved brain storming optimization
algorithm for estimating parameters of photovoltaic models.” IEEE. Access 2019;7:
77629–41.
[24] Hlalele T, Du S. Analysis of power transmission line uncertainties: status review.
J. Electr. Electron. Syst 2016;5(3):1–5.
[25] Quality, On Power. “Iscc. iieee recommended practice for monitoring electric
power quality.” (1995).
[26] Milanovic JV, Hiskens IA. Effects of load dynamics on power system damping. IEEE
Trans Power Syst 1995;10(2):1022–8.
[27] Hill DJ. Nonlinear dynamic load models with recovery for voltage stability studies.
IEEE Trans Power Syst 1993;8(1):166–76.
[28] Lee Y, Han S. Real-time voltage stability assessment method for the Korean power
system based on estimation of Thévenin equivalent impedance. Applied Sciences
2019;9(8):1671.
[29] Mirjalili S, Lewis A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 2016;95:
51–67.
[30] Haklı H, Uğuz H. A novel particle swarm optimization algorithm with Levy flight.
Appl Soft Comput 2014;23:333–45.
[31] Chegini SN, Bagheri A, Najafi F. PSOSCALF: A new hybrid PSO based on Sine
Cosine Algorithm and Levy flight for solving optimization problems. Appl Soft
Comput 2018;73:697–726.
[32] Jensi R, Jiji GW. An enhanced particle swarm optimization with levy flight for
global optimization. Appl Soft Comput 2016;43:248–61.
24
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
[33] Hassanein WS, Ahmed MM, Mosaad MI, Abu-Siada A. Estimation of Transmission
Line Parameters Using Voltage-Current Measurements and Whale Optimization
Algorithm. Energies 2021;14(11):3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113239.
[34] Saadat H. Power system analysis, Vol. 2. McGraw-hill; 1999.
[35] Ansari MM, Guo C, Shaikh MS, Chopra N, Haq I, Shen L. “Planning for distribution
system with grey wolf optimization method. J. Electrical Eng Technol 2020;15(4):
1485–99.
[36] Shaikh MS, et al. Analysis of underground cable fault techniques using MATLAB
simulation. Sukkur IBA Journal of Computing and Mathematical Sciences 2020;4
(1):1–10.
[37] Arif A, Wang Z, Wang J, Mather B, Bashualdo H, Zhao D. Load modeling—A
review. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;9(6):5986–99.
[38] Shaikh MS, Hua C, Jatoi MA, Ansari MM, Qader AA. Application of grey wolf
optimisation algorithm in parameter calculation of overhead transmission line
system. IET Sci Meas Technol 2021;15(2):218–31.
[39] Dey B, Bhattacharyya B, Devarapalli R. A novel hybrid algorithm for solving
emerging electricity market pricing problem of microgrid. Int J Intell Syst 2021;36
(2):919–61.
[40] Nasiri J, Khiyabani FM, Yoshise A. A whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
approach for clustering. Cogent Mathematics & Statistics 2018;5(1):1483565.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25742558.2018.1483565.
[41] Zhang Q, Liu L. Whale optimization algorithm based on lamarckian learning for
global optimization problems. IEEE Access 2019;7:36642–66.
[42] Yan Z, Sha J, Liu B, Tian W, Lu J. An ameliorative whale optimization algorithm for
multi-objective optimal allocation of water resources in Handan, China. Water
2018;10(1):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010087.
[43] Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 2014;69:
46–61.
[44] Liu H, Hua G, Yin H, Xu Y. An intelligent grey wolf optimizer algorithm for
distributed compressed sensing. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
2018;2018:1–10.
[45] Singh N. A modified variant of grey wolf optimizer. Scientia Iranica 2020;27(3):
1450–66.
[46] Yang, Xin-She, and Suash Deb. “Cuckoo search via Lévy flights.” 2009 World
congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NaBIC). Ieee, 2009.
[47] Shehab M, Khader AT, Al-Betar MA. A survey on applications and variants of the
cuckoo search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 2017;61:1041–59.
[48] Salgotra R, Singh U, Saha S. New cuckoo search algorithms with enhanced
exploration and exploitation properties. Expert Syst Appl 2018;95:384–420.
[49] Shehab M, Khader AT, Laouchedi M. A hybrid method based on cuckoo search
algorithm for global optimization problems. Journal of Information and
Communication Technology 2018;17(3):469–91.
[50] Ouaarab A, Ahiod B, Yang X-S. Discrete cuckoo search algorithm for the travelling
salesman problem. Neural Comput Appl 2014;24(7-8):1659–69.
[51] Shehab, Mohammad, Ahamad Tajudin Khader, and Mohammad A. Alia.
“Enhancing cuckoo search algorithm by using reinforcement learning for
constrained engineering optimization problems.” 2019 IEEE Jordan International
Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT). IEEE,
2019.
[52] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis
with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT press 1992.
[53] Murata T, Ishibuchi H, Tanaka H. Multi-objective genetic algorithm and its
applications to flowshop scheduling. Comput Ind Eng 1996;30(4):957–68.
[54] Adeec, uceh.. Time complexity of genetic algorithms on exponentially scaled
problems. Urbana 2000;51:61–801.
[55] Wright, Alden H. “Genetic algorithms for real parameter
optimization.” Foundations of genetic algorithms. Vol. 1. Elsevier, 1991. 205-218.
[56] Bajpai P, Kumar M. Genetic algorithm–an approach to solve global optimization
problems. Indian Journal of computer science and engineering 2010;1(3):199–206.
[57] Zingg DW, Nemec M, Pulliam TH. A comparative evaluation of genetic and
gradient-based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization. European Journal
of Computational Mechanics/Revue Européenne de Mécanique Numérique 2008;
17(1-2):103–26.
[58] Kennedy, James, and Russell Eberhart. “Particle swarm optimization.” Proceedings
of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks. Vol. 4. IEEE, 1995.
[59] Poli R, Kennedy J, Blackwell T. Particle swarm optimization. Swarm Intell 2007;1
(1):33–57.
[60] Wang X, Yang J, Teng X, Xia W, Jensen R. Feature selection based on rough sets
and particle swarm optimization. Pattern Recogn Lett 2007;28(4):459–71.
[61] Liu Y, Wang G, Chen H, Dong H, Zhu X, Wang S. An improved particle swarm
optimization for feature selection. J Bionic Eng 2011;8(2):191–200.
[62] Bai Q. Analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Computer and
information science 2010;3(1):180.
[63] Zong Woo Geem, Joong Hoon Kim, Loganathan GV. A New Heuristic Optimization
Algorithm: Harmony Search. SIMULATION 2001;76(2):60–8.
[64] Ceylan H, Ceylan H. Harmony search algorithm for transport energy demand
modeling. In: Geem ZW, editor. Studies in Computational IntelligenceMusic-
Inspired Harmony Search Algorithm. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg; 2009. p. 163–72.
[65] Wang L, Yang R, Xu Y, Niu Q, Pardalos PM, Fei M. An improved adaptive binary
harmony search algorithm. Inf Sci 2013;232:58–87.
[66] Karthigeyan P, Raja MS, Hariharan R, Prakash S, Delibabu S, Gnanaselvam R.
Comparison of harmony search algorithm, improved harmony search algorithm
with biogeography based optimization algorithm for solving constrained economic
load dispatch problems. Procedia Technol 2015;21:611–8.
M. Suhail Shaikh et al.
[67] Guo L, Wang G-G, Wang H, Wang D. An effective hybrid firefly algorithm with
harmony search for global numerical optimization. The Scientific World Journal
2013;2013:1–9.
[68] Glover F. Tabu search—part I. ORSA Journal on computing 1989;1(3):190–206.
[69] Kargahi, Mohsen. Structural optimization with tabu search. University of Southern
California, 2002.
[70] Reeves C. Heuristics for scheduling a single machine subject to unequal job release
times. Eur J Oper Res 1995;80(2):397–403.
[71] Wang D, Xiong H, Fang D. A neighborhood expansion tabu search algorithm based
on genetic factors. Open Journal of Social Sciences 2016;04(03):303–8.
[72] Kulturel-Konak S, Smith AE, Coit DW. Efficiently solving the redundancy allocation
problem using tabu search. IIE Trans 2003;35(6):515–26.
[73] Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H. Harris hawks
optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future Generation Computer Systems
2019;97:849–72.
[74] Elgamal ZM, Yasin NBM, Tubishat M, Alswaitti M, Mirjalili S. An improved harris
hawks optimization algorithm with simulated annealing for feature selection in the
medical field. IEEE Access 2020;8:186638–52.
[75] Zhang Y, Zhou X, Shih P-C. Modified Harris Hawks optimization algorithm for
global optimization problems. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 2020;
45(12):10949–74.
25
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 138 (2022) 107893
[76] Li S, Chen H, Wang M, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S. Slime mould algorithm: A new
method for stochastic optimization. Future Generation Computer Systems 2020;
111:300–23.
[77] Liu M, Li Y, Huo Qi, Li A, Zhu M, Qu N, et al. A Two-Way Parallel Slime Mold
Algorithm by Flow and Distance for the Travelling Salesman Problem. Applied
Sciences 2020;10(18):6180. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186180.
[78] Shah-Hosseini H. Intelligent water drops algorithm: A new optimization method
for solving the multiple knapsack problem. International Journal of Intelligent
Computing and Cybernetics 2008;1(2):193–212.
[79] AlDeeb BAM, Norwawi NM, Al-Betar MA. A survey on intelligent water drop
algorithm. Journal: Internation Journal of Computers and Technology 2014;13
(10):5075–84.
[80] Elsherbiny S, Eldaydamony E, Alrahmawy M, Reyad AE. An extended Intelligent
Water Drops algorithm for workflow scheduling in cloud computing environment.
Egyptian informatics journal 2018;19(1):33–55.
[81] Crawford B, Soto R, Astorga G, Lemus-Romani J, Misra S, Castillo M, et al.
Balancing exploration-exploitation in the set covering problem resolution with a
self-adaptive intelligent water drops algorithm. Advances in Science, Technology
and Engineering Systems 2020;6(1):134–45.
[82] Maryati I. The Comparison of Intelligent Water Drops and Backtrack Algorithm in
Solving Travelling Salesman Problem. ISICO 2013;2013:2013.