E1, pp 5166
Printed in The Islamic Republic of Iran, 2012
Shiraz University
A NEW HYBRID HBMOSFLA ALGORITHM FOR MULTIOBJECTIVE
DISTRIBUTION FEEDER RECONFIGURATION PROBLEM
CONSIDERING DISTRIBUTED GENERATOR UNITS
*
B. BAHMANIFIROUZI
1
, E. FARJ AH
1
,
**
T. NIKNAM
2
AND E. AZAD FARSANI
2
1
Dept. of Power and Control Eng., School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I. R. of Iran
Email: farjah@shirazu.ac.ir
2
Dept. of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, I. R. of Iran
Abstract Distribution feeder reconfiguration (DFR) is one of the wellknown and effective
strategies adopted in distribution network. The goal of DFR problem is to obtain a new topological
structure for distribution feeders by rearranging the status of switches such that an optimal
configuration would be obtained. The existence of Distributed Generation (DG) can affect the
entire power system and especially distribution networks. This paper presents an efficient
approach for multiobjective DFR problem considering the simultaneous effect of DG units. The
objective functions to be investigated are 1) power losses, 2) voltage deviation of buses, 3)
emission produced by DG units and distribution companies and 4) the total cost of the active
power generated by DG units and distribution companies. The new evolutionary method is based
on an efficient multiobjective hybrid honey bee mating optimization (HBMO) and shuffled frog
leaping algorithm (SFLA) called MHBMOSFLA. The proposed hybrid algorithm integrates the
outstanding characteristics of SFLA to improve the performance of HBMO algorithm sufficiently.
In the proposed MHBMOSFLA, an external repository is considered to save nondominated
solutions which are found during the search process. Also, since the objective functions are not the
same, a fuzzy clustering technique is utilized to control the size of the repository within the limits.
A distribution test feeder is considered to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed
approach.
Keywords Multiobjective honey bee mating optimization (MHBMO), multiobjective shuffled frog leaping
algorithm (MSFLA), multiobjective distribution feeder reconfiguration (MDFR), distributed generator (DG)
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, distributed generation units refer to smallscale electric power generators that produce
electricity at a site close to the customer or an electric distribution system (in parallel mode). From the
customers point of view, a potentially lower cost, higher service reliability, high power quality, increased
energy efficiency, and energy independence can be the key points of a proper DG unit[12]. Moreover, the
use of renewable types of distributed generations such as wind, photovoltaic, geothermal or hydroelectric
power can also provide significant environmental benefits [3]. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to
study their impacts on the distribution networks. In this situation, the DFR problemas one of the most
significant control schemes in the distribution networks can be affected by DG units. Generally, the DFR
is defined as altering the topological structure of distribution feeders by changing the open/closed states of
sectionalizing and tie switches so that the objective function is minimized, and all constraints are met.
In recent years, considerable research has been conducted to study the DFR problemin the new
marketdriven environment. Kimet al. [4] proposed a neural networkbased method to identify network

Received by the editors April 10, 2011; Accepted March 7, 2012.

Corresponding author
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
52
configurations corresponding to different load levels. Shirmohammadi proposed the reconfiguration in
electric distribution networks to reduce the resistive line losses [5]. Taylor and Lubkeman [6] presented an
expert systemusing heuristic rules to shrink the search space. Kashemet al. [7] proposed distance
measurement technique algorithm which first finds a loop, and then a switching scheme is determined to
improve the load balancing condition. In [8] J eon incorporated the simulated annealing algorithmwith
Tabu search for loss reduction. In his work, the Tabu search attempted to determine a better solution in the
manner of a greatestdescent algorithm, but it could not give any guarantee for the convergence property.
Chiou et al [9] presented a variable scaling hybrid differential evolution (VSHDE) to solve the DFR
problem. Minimizing the power loss has been considered as the objective function in this work. Ahuja et
al proposed a hybrid algorithm based on artificial immune system and ant colony optimization for
distribution systemreconfiguration [10]. Niknamet al proposed two new approaches based on hybrid
evolutionary algorithmfor singleobjective DFR problem[1112]. Arun et al proposed a fuzzy genetic
based approach for reconfiguration of radial distribution systems to maximize the voltage stability
objective function [13]. In the approaches, the author solved the multiobjective problemby the use of
classical method, which converts the multiobjective problemto a singleobjective problem. However, in
this method so many runs are needed to find the set of optimal solutions. In [14], Niknampresented an
approach based on hybrid evolutionary algorithmfor multiobjective distribution feeder reconfiguration.
In [15], Niknamet al proposed a modified shuffled frog leaping algorithmfor multiobjective DFR
problem, although in this work DG units were not considered. Gomes et al. [16] proposed a heuristic
strategy for reconfiguration of distribution systems. In fact, in none of the above work has the DFR
problembeen studied considering DG units. In [17] Yuan et al proposed a reconfiguration methodology
based on an Ant Colony Algorithmthat aims at achieving the minimumpower loss and increment load
balance factor of radial distribution networks. Vinicius et al [18] presented a model for active distribution
systems expansion planning based on genetic algorithms. In [19] an ordinal optimization technique in
conjunction with a particle swarm optimization (PSO) method is presented to solve a feeder
reconfiguration problemthat aims to maximize distributed generation (DG) penetration in an existing
distribution network. Shu et al [20] focused on distributed power (DG) impact on distribution network and
distribution network reconfiguration algorithms. In [21], a selfhealing reconfiguration technique is
proposed for smart distribution networks with insertion of distributed generations (DGs). In [22],
Bahmanifirouzi presented an approach for distribution reconfiguration considering Distributed Generators
(DGs). Consequently, in this paper, a novel DFR approach is presented for a distribution network
considering DG units. In the proposed DFR approach, four objective functions have been proposed as
follows: 1) The active power losses of distribution network. 2) The deviation of the voltage of buses.3)
The cost of the active power generated by DGs and distribution companies.4) The emission produced by
DG units and distribution companies.
Based on the above discussion, the distribution feeder reconfiguration is a multiobjective
optimization problem in which the objective functions are not the same and commensurable, but also
nonlinear and nondifferentiable. Therefore, it is difficult to solve the problem by the use of conventional
approaches. In fact, most of the optimal algorithms cannot effectively solve this kind of problem and they
usually achieve local optimal solutions rather than global optimal solutions. In this paper, a hybrid
algorithmcalled MHBMOSFLA algorithm is presented to find the optimal operating condition of the
distribution networks.
Taking advantage of the compensatory property of HBMO and SFLA, a new algorithm is proposed
that combines the evolutionary natures of both algorithms (denoted as HBMOSFLA). The most important
advantage of the proposed algorithm is its fast rate and high accuracy convergence in finding the optimal
configuration of the distribution networks. In the proposed algorithm, several solutions have been
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
53
considered as a set of nondominated solutions. Also, an external memory has been used for the storage of
nondominated solutions found along the search process. Moreover, a fuzzy clustering algorithm is
utilized to control the size of the external memory. Therefore, the main contributions of this paper can be
presented as follows:
(i) Presenting a new multiobjective DFR problemconsidering the effects of DG units
(ii) Presenting a new hybrid evolutionary algorithmto solve the multiobjective DFR problem
2. DISTRIBUTION FEEDER RECONFIGURATION
In this paper the objective functions of MDFR problem consist of four parts:
a) Minimization of the power losses
The minimization of the total real power losses is calculated as follows:
2
1
1
( ) ( )
br
N
l oss i i
i
f X p X R I
=
= =
(1)
) 2 ( 1 2 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 1
] ,..., , , ,...., , , ,..., , [
DG tie DG DG tie
N N N N g g g N i
pf pf pf p p p Tie Tie Tie X
+
=
where
i
R and
i
I are the resistance and actual current of the
th
i branch, respectively.
br
N is the number of
the branches. X is the vector of control variables.
i
Tie is the state of the
th
i tie switch in which 0 and 1
correspond to open and closed states, respectively;
i g
p
,
is the active power of the
th
i DG;
i
pf is the power
factor of the
th
i DG;
tie
N is the number of tie switches and
DG
N is the number of DG units.
b) Minimization of the total cost of the active power generated by DG units and distribution companies
2
1
$/
,
$/
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
DG
Grid
N
i
DG Grid
i
i i KW
DG DG g i
KW
Grid sub
f X Cost X Cost Cost
Cost C p
Cost C p
=
= = +
=
=
(2)
where
i
DG
Cost is the cost of the
th
i DG units,
Grid
Cost is the cost of the substation bus,
i
DG
C is the cost
coefficient of the
th
i DG units and
Grid
C is the cost coefficient of substation bus.
c) Minimization of DG units and substation bus emissions
3
1
/
,
/
( ) ( ) ( )
( 2 2 )
( 2 2 )
DG
i i i
N
i
DG Grid
i
i DG DG DG lb MW
DG g i
Grid Grid Grid lb MW
Grid sub
f X Emission X E E
E NOx CO SO p
E NOx CO SO p
=
= = +
= + +
= + +
(3)
where
i
DG
E
is the emission produced by the
th
i distributed generator,
Grid
E is the emission produced by
the substation bus connected to the grid.
d) Minimizing the deviation of the voltage bus
Bus voltage deviation is described as follows:
4 min max
( ) ( ) max 1 1
voltage
f X d X V and V ( = =
(4)
where
min
V and
max
V are the minimumand maximumvalues of bus voltages, respectively.
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
54
3. DISTRIBUTED GENERATOR MODELING
Generally, DG units in distribution networks can be modeled as PV or PQ models. Also, since distribution
networks are unbalanced threephase systems, DG units can be controlled and operated in two forms [23]:
 Simultaneous threephase control
 Independent threephase control or single phase control
Therefore, regarding the control methods and DG units models, four models can be defined for
simulation of these generators (Fig.1) [23]:
Fig. 1. Models of DG units.(a) PQ model with simultaneous threephase control, (b) PQ model
with independent threephase control, (c) PV model with simultaneous threephase
control and (d) PV model with independent threephase control
a) PQ model with simultaneous threephase control. b) PV model with simultaneous threephase control.
c) PQ model with independent three phase control. d) PV model with independent three phase control.
When DG units are considered as PV models, they have to be able to generate reactive power to
maintain their voltage magnitudes. In this regard, many researchers have presented several procedures to
model DG units as PV buses. In this paper, DG units are modeled as the PQ buses with simultaneous 3
phase control.
a) Multiobjective optimization problem
As mentioned before in Section.2, the DFR optimization problem is a complex multiobjective
optimization problem with different types of constraints. Here, the multiobjective evolutionary algorithm
is introduced to solve it. The proposed method deals with multiple objective functions simultaneously to
get a set of paretooptimal solutions in a single run of the algorithm. Generally, multiobjective
optimization problemcan be defined mathematically as follows [2428]:
eq i
ueq i
T
n
N i X h
N i X g
t s
X f X f X f F
,..., 2 , 1 0 ) (
,..., 2 , 1 0 ) (
. .
)] ( ),..., ( ), ( [ min
2 1
= =
= <
=
(5)
where ) ( X f
i
is the
th
i objective function and ) ( X g
i
and ) ( X h
i
are the equality and inequality
constraints, respectively. In this paper X as the control vector is defined as follows:
) 2 ( 1 2 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 1
] ,..., , , ,...., , , ,..., , [
DG tie DG DG tie
N N N N g g g N
pf pf pf p p p Tie Tie Tie X
+
=
in which
n is the
number of objective functions.
For a multiobjective minimized problem, a solution X
1
is said to dominate another solution X
2
, if both
of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The solution X
1
is better than X
2
for all objectives:
{ }
1 2
1,2,..., , ( ) ( )
j j
j n f X f X e s (6)
(2) The solution X
1
is strictly better than X
2
in at least one objective function
{ } ) ( ) ( , ,..., 2 , 1
2 1
X f X f n k
k k
< e 
(7)
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
55
b) Fuzzy based clustering
In the proposed multiobjective DFR problem, the obtained nondominated solutions are stored in an
external repository with constant size. Since the objectives functions are imprecise, a fuzzybased
clustering procedure has been utilized to control the size of the repository. In the procedure, the fuzzy
membership function is used to recognize the best compromised solution too. In other words, decision
making is done after the repository gets full. For any individual in the repository, the membership function
of each objective function is defined as follows:
s s
>
s
=
max min
min max
max
max
min
) (
) (
) ( 0
) ( 1
) (
i i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
fi
f X f f
f f
X f f
f X f for
f X f for
X
(8)
where,
min
i
f
and
max
i
f
are the lower and upper limits of each objective function, respectively. In the
proposed algorithm, the values of
min
i
f
and
max
i
f
are evaluated using the results achieved by optimizing
each objective function, separately. For each individual in the repository, the normalized membership
value is evaluated as:
= =
=
=
m
j
n
k
j fk k
n
k
j fk k
X
X
j N
1 1
1
) (
) (
) (
(9)
where, m is the number of nondominated solutions and
k
is the weight for the
th
k objective function.
This membership function shows a type of decision making criteria that is adaptive and changes with the
available decision options.
4. HYBRID MHBMOSFLA ALGORITHM
a) MHBMO
In the proposed multiobjective HBMO (MHBMO) algorithm, several queens are utilized. They are
considered as a set of nondominated solutions and stored in an external memory (repository). The
repository is initialized by the nondominated individuals presented in the initial population. Since the
objective functions are not the same, the best solution is extracted from the repository using a fuzzybased
mechanism. During the search process, if the best solution dominates any individual in the repository, the
corresponding individual is immediately removed from it. It is evident that a great size of the repository is
more appropriate. However, it is necessary to limit the repository size as the result of memory constraints.
Also, a large repository increases computational time. In the MHBMO algorithm, a drone mates with a
queen probabilistically as:
)) ( / exp( ) ( t S F F D prob
drone queen
=
(10)
where
q u e e n
F and
drone
F are the normalized membership values obtained by Eq.(9) for queen and the
selected drone. Also,
S(t) is the queen speed at time t. The queen's speed decreases according to the
following equations:
) t ( S ) t ( S = + 1
(11)
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
56
where is a reduction factor e (0,1). A number of mating flights are then realized. Workers adopt some
heuristic mechanisms such as crossover or mutation to improve the broods genotype. The fitness of the
resulting genotype is determined by evaluating the value of the objective function of the brood genotype.
It is important to note that a brood has only one genotype. The complete steps of MHBMO algorithmare
listed as follows [2930]:
Step 1: Create an initial population randomly.
Step 2: Evaluate objective functions of each individual by equation (1),(2),(3) and(4).
Step 3: Evaluate membership function of each objective function by (8) for the initial population.
Step 4: Evaluate the objective function for multiobjective optimization problem by normalized
membership function in (9).
Step 5: Select the nondominated solutions of initial population and store in an external memory
(repository).
Step 6: Select a queen randomly fromthe repository.
Step 7: Select a drone randomly and calculate (10).
Step 8: If the calculated probability in the previous step is bigger than a randomnumber between 0 and 1,
store the drone into the queen's spermatheca matrix and decrease the speed, else without storing drone
decrease the speed.
Step 9: If the queens speed reaches to her minimumspeed or the queen's spermatheca is filled, go to the
next step, else return to step 7.
Step 10: Generate the new broods by breeding process.
Step 11: Evaluate objective functions for new broods.
Step 12: If each of the new broods is a nondominated solution, then store it in the repository and go to the
next step, else go straight to the next step.
Step 13: If the convergence condition is satisfied stop the programand print the result, else go to step 2.
b) MSFLA
The SFL algorithm[31] is a memetic metaheuristic algorithmthat is designed to seek a global
optimal solution by performing uninformed heuristic search using a heuristic function. It is based on the
evolution of memes carried by interactive individuals and a global exchange of information among the
population [32].
In the MSFLA, to improve the position of the worst frog in each memplex,
j br g j b j w
X X X X
, , ,
, , ,
must
first be determined. Here,
b w
X X , are the worst frog and best frog in each memplex, respectively.
Also,
g
X is the frog with the best fitness in the repository and
j br
X
,
is a frog of repository that is randomly
selected for each memplex so that
j br g j b
X X X
, ,
= = . Then the (12) and (13) are used to improve the
position of the worst frog. In these equations, if the new frog ( j w
bew
X , ) dominates j w
old
X , , it replaces the
worst frog; otherwise, the position of j w
old
X , is generated randomly by:
,1 , 2
[ ,..., ] ( ( ( ))
DG
Dj d d Ntie N g bj br
X x x round X X X
+
= = +
(12)
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
57
DG tie
i Dj
i bj
new
i wj
N N i
if x
if x
x 2 ,..., 3 , 2 , 1
2 1 ,
2 1 ,
,
+ =
<
>
=
(13)
where ( ) is a constant value between (0.1, 1.2); round(.) is a math function which rounds the elements of
X to the nearest integers;
1
and
2
are randomnumbers between 0 and 1.
c) Combination of MHBMO and MSFLA algorithms
In the last sections (6.1 and 6.2) the steps of the HBMO and SFLA algorithms were explained
completely. According to these steps, MHBMO algorithmcan solve many optimization problems, but in
some cases, the obtained results by MHBMO are not global and it seems that the algorithm falls in local
solutions. To overcome this drawback of the original HBMO algorithm, we must change the local search
procedure or make use of a supplementary algorithm such as SFLA to compensate it. In this paper, to
conquer the mentioned HBMOs drawback and also taking advantage of the MHBMO and MSFLA
algorithms, a new algorithmis proposed by combining the MHBMO and MSFLA entitled MHBMO
SFLA. The main goal of integrating these algorithms is to combine their advantages and avoid their
disadvantages.
In Fig. 2, the schematic representation of the proposed hybrid MHBMOSFLA is shown. The initial
population size of the hybrid algorithm is set to 2N when solving an Ndimensional problem. The initial
2N solutions are randomly generated. They are fed into the MHBMO algorithm. The normalized
membership values are evaluated and the best N solutions are then fed into the MSFLA to improve the N
solutions. Then the obtained new solutions are combined and divided to algorithms again.
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of singleobjective hybrid MHBMOSFLA
To apply the proposed algorithm to the multiobjective distribution feeder reconfiguration, the
following steps should be done:
Step 1: Define the input data
Step 2: Generate the initial population, as follows:
1
2
2 ( ,2 )
1 ( 2 ) 1 2 ,1 ,2 ,
1 2 1 ( 2 )
...
[ ] [ , ,..., , , ,..., ,
, ,..., ] ,
1,2,3,...,2
tie NDG
DG tie tie tie
DG tie DG
2
N
N N N
i i N N N g g g N
N N N
X
X
population
X
X x Tie Tie Tie P P P
Pf Pf Pf
i N
+
+
(
(
(
=
(
(
= =
=
(14)
where x
j
is the j
th
control variable. 2 N is the number of initial population.
Step 3: Use the MaxMin method to obtain a new radiality configuration.
The main problem in distributed feeder reconfiguration is the preservation of the radiality of network
which, in this paper, a maxmin method has been employed to preserve this characteristic of the network.
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
58
In the proposed MaxMin method, when the
th
k tie switch of a distribution system is closed ( 1 =
i
Tie ), a
loop is formed with
i loop
N
,
number of branches in the loop. Now, opening each branch in this loop is an
option. After opening the
th
j branch in this loop (radial structure is retained), the loadflow run is carried
out to compute the membership function of each objective function,
, , , ,
( ), ( ), ( ), ( )
l oos voltage
p j Emission j d j Cost j
X X X X
, for
i loop
N j
,
,..., 2 , 1 =
. The degree of overall satisfaction for
this option is the minimumof all the above membership values, so the optimal radiality configuration is
the maximumof all such overall degrees of satisfaction.
Step 4: Evaluate objective functions by (1),(2),(3) and (4). In the proposed algorithm, at first, based on the
control variables, a distribution load flow is run. Then the objective functions and constraints are
evaluated. If any constraint is not in its limits, a penalty factor is added in the objective.
Step 5: Store the nondominated solutions in the repository and use the fuzzy clustering technique to
control the size of the repository.
Step 6: Feed the 2N solutions into MHBMO algorithm.
Step 7: Evaluate the objective functions by (1),(2),(3) and (4).
Step 8: Evaluate the membership function of each objective function by (8).
Step 9: Use (9) to calculate the normalized membership value for each solution.
Step: Sort the 2N solutions according to the calculated normalized membership value in the previous step.
Step 10: Feed the top N solutions into MSFLA.
Step 11: Combine the obtained new solution by MHBMO and MSFLA.
Step 12: Store the nondominated solutions in the repository and use the fuzzy clustering to control the
size of repository.
Step 13: Check the termination criteria, if the termination criteria is satisfied then finish the algorithm,
else go to step 6 and continue the other algorithms steps.
5. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section a test power system, is considered to examine the performance of the proposed method on
the DFR problemconsidering DG units. The obtained results are as follows:
a) Distribution test system
This distribution network is a practical distribution network [10]. A single line diagramof the system
is shown in Fig.3. The test system has 94 buses including 2 substations, 11 feeders, and 96 switches. It is
assumed that all switches are automated. The total active power loss and the minimum voltage for the
initial configuration without DG units are 531.99kW and 0.948 per unit, respectively. The complete data
of eight DG units proposed for the distribution test systemare given in Table1.
As mentioned before, the DFR problem with regard to DG units has not been considered so far.
Hence, in order to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method in comparison to other methods;
at first, total active power losses and the voltage deviation of the buses are separately optimized when
there are no DG units.
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
59
Fig. 3. A single line diagram of distribution test system
Table 1. Characteristic of DG units
Capacity (KW) DG type Location Power factor Price($/kWh)
DG
1
500 Gas turbine 6 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.01
DG
2
500 Gas turbine 53 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.01
DG
3
500 Fuel cell 60 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.082
DG
4
500 Fuel cell 71 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.082
DG
5
500 Micro turbine 13 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.013
DG
6
500 Gas turbine 83 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.01
DG
7
500 IC 18 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.015
DG
8
500 IC 36 0.9 lag to 0.9 lead 0.015
Table 2 illustrates a comparison of the proposed algorithm with the other methods in terms of
computational efficiency and performance when the objective function is active power losses. It is
observed that the obtained results by the proposed method are better than the other methods.
Table 2. Results obtained by optimizing the total active power losses
Method
Power
losses
[KW]
Saving in
power [%]
Minimum
Voltage [pu]
Open switches
Chiou,et.al [9] 469.8800 0.9285 11.68 s55,s7,s86,s72,s88,s89,s90,s83,s92,s39,s34,s41,s62
SA [8] 469.8800 0.9285 11.68 s55,s7,s86,s72,s88,s89,s90,s83,s92,s39,s34,s41,s62
Ahuja et al [10] 463.2896 0.9532 12.92 s55,s7,s86,s72,s88,s14,s90,s83,s92,s39,s34,s42,s62
Proposed
method
463.2896 0.9532 12.92 s55,s7,s86,s72,s88,s14,s90,s83,s92,s39,s34,s42,s62
In Table 3 the best results obtained by optimizing the voltage deviation of the buses of the proposed
algorithmhave been compared with the other works. Based on this table, the obtained results are better
than those of the other methods.
Table 3. Results obtained by optimizing the voltage deviation of the buses
Method Minimum
deviation of
the bus
voltage[pu]
Minimum
Voltage [pu]
Power
losses
[KW]
Open switches
SA [8] 0.0448 0.9552 493.1658 s7,s13,s14,s34,s37,s42,s55,s61,s71,s83,s86,s90,s92
Chiou,et.al [9] 0.0448 0.9552 509.4480 s7,s13,s14,s38,s41,s55,s62,s71,s83,s86,s90,s92,s94
Ahuja et al [10] 0.0451 0.9549 502.9124
s7, s13, s32, s33, s39, s42, s54, s64, s72,, s86, s89,
s90, s91
The proposed
algorithm
0.0448 0.9552 509.8226 s7,s13,s14,s37,s40,s55,s62,s71,s82,s86,s90,s92,s94
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
60
In Table 4 the results of minimizing the emission objective function which is obtained by the proposed
algorithm and the other evolutionary algorithms are shown. According to this table, the hybrid algorithm
could find a configuration with less emission than the others.
Table 4. Results obtained by optimizing the emission
Method
Emission
(lb)
Open switches
SFLA [15] 56710.94 s84,s6,s86,s87,s73,s89,s15,s91,s92,s93,s94,s41,s96
HBMO [14] 56477.99 s1,s6,s86,s87,s88,s89,s90,s77,s92,s29,s94,s41,s96
HBMOSFLA 56473.97 s84,s6,s11,s87,s88,s89,s15,s91,s25,s93,s94,s95,s96
A comparison between the performance of the hybrid algorithm and the original algorithms in terms of
minimumcost is shown in Table 5. The results remark the greater ability of the hybrid algorithmrather
than the original algorithms.
Table 5. Results obtained by optimizing the cost
Method Cost ($) Open switches
SFLA [15] 131.2868 s84,s85,s86,s66,s75,s89,s90,s91,s92,s93,s94,s41,s96
HBMO [14] 131.5812 s84,s6,s11,s66,s88,s17,s90,s77,s25,s29,s94,s95,s96
HBMOSFLA 114.0577 s3,s85,s86,s87,s88,s89,s15,s91,s92,s93,s94,s95,s96
In Table 6 and Fig. 4 the obtained results for singleobjective DFR problem for both considering DG
units and without DG units are shown. Comparing the results of Table 6 and Fig. 4, it is obvious that the
values of the power losses and voltage deviation have changed when the DG units are used.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
10.7
10.8
10.9
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Bus no
B
u
s
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
k
v
)
With DG units
Without DG units
Fig. 4. Comparison between two profile voltages (with DG units and without DG units)
when objective function is voltage deviation
Table 6. Results obtained by optimizing the power losses for singleobjective DFR
problem with DG units and without DG units
objective
Power losses
[KW]
Minimum voltage
[pu]
Open switches
With DG units 441.4653 0.93878 s1,s6,s86,s66,s88,s89,s90,s91,s92,s29,s94,s95,s96
Without DG
units
463.2896 0.95320 s55,s7,s86,s72,s88,s14,s90,s83,s92,s39,s34,s42,s62
By making a comparison between the obtained results in Table 6 and Fig. 4, we can deduce that using DG
units in the distribution systems has a high impact on the DFR problem. Also, based on the open switches
situation, the number of switching, considering DG units is less than without DG units. The CPU time of
the proposed algorithm is about 10 s. Table 7 shows the generations dispatch for each case.
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
61
Table 7. Active power and power factor of DG units
Generated active power by DG units (KW) Power factor of DG units
DG
1
DG
2
DG
3
DG
4
DG
1
DG
2
DG
3
DG
4
f1 333 369 263 321 0.90lag 0.90lag 0.99lag 0.99lag
f2 344 307 13 25 0.99lag 0.95lag 0.99lag 0.99lag
f3 446 492 465 429 0.96lag 0.94lag 0.91lag 0.91lag
f4 125 388 343 130 0.90(lag) 0.99(lag) 0.99(lag) 0.99(lag)
DG5 DG6 DG7 DG8 DG5 DG6 DG7 DG8
f1 253 244 302 267 0.92lag 0.95lag 0.90lag 0.91lag
f2 42 233 180 486 0.99lag 0.97lag 0.90lag 0.90lag
f3 88 481 387 426 0.98lag 0.98lag 0.99lag 0.99lag
f4 373 27 307 274 0.97(lag) 0.98(lag) 0.99(lag) 0.91(lag)
A set of nondominated solutions found for 3objective DFR problem with regard to the DG units are
shown in Fig. 5. In these figures, the objectives are: a) Power losses, voltage deviation and cost. b) Power
losses, voltage deviation and emission. c) Power losses, cost and emission. d) Voltage deviation, cost and
emission. Also, some of the nondominated solutions obtained for the fourobjective DFR problemare
shown in Table 8.
450
500
550
600
650
700
750 0.05
0.055
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
Voltage deviation(P.u)
Power losses(Kw)
C
o
s
t
(
$
)
450
500
550
600
650
700
750 0.05
0.06
0.07
0. 08
0.09
0.1
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
x 10
4
Voltage deviation(P.u)
Power losses(Kw)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
L
b
)
a) Obtained nondominated solution when objectives are:
Power losses, voltage deviation and cost
b) Obtained nondominated solution when objectives are:
Power losses, voltage deviation and emission
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
5. 6
5.65
5. 7
5.75
5. 8
5.85
5. 9
x 10
4
power losses(Kw) Cost($)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
L
b
)
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1 110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
x 10
4
Cost($)
Voltage deviation (P.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
L
b
)
c) Obtained nondominated solution when objectives are:
Power losses, emission and cost
d) Obtained nondominated solution when objectives are:
Emission, voltage deviation and cost
Fig. 5. Obtained nondominated solutions for 3objective DFR problem with regard to DG units
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
62
Table 8. Obtained nondominatedsolution for fourobjective DFR problem
Power
losses
(KW)
Voltage
deviation
(pu)
Cost
($)
Emission
(lb)
1 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
2 515.4951 0.058774 159.2710 57554.07
3 448.3251 0.097287 114.0577 58330.14
4 646.5195 0.096197 205.3344 56473.97
5 678.9304 0.082358 131.5812 57833.35
6 532.5174 0.077619 187.5141 56477.99
7 645.5058 0.081881 155.2882 57049.34
8 579.4348 0.061200 140.8875 58122.75
9 566.4993 0.080804 136.3888 57684.35
10 611.7619 0.061363 134.9995 57457.59
11 509.7065 0.059296 170.4323 57278.07
12 566.5229 0.080029 178.9659 56710.94
13 597.9471 0.061752 178.2820 56744.08
14 586.1510 0.060289 159.3656 57228.33
15 578.9226 0.059796 171.5837 57208.00
16 560.1896 0.071534 124.3569 57907.03
17 564.9446 0.059463 163.6486 57394.01
18 444.0323 0.060884 174.1065 57123.40
19 526.1385 0.083089 135.3008 57643.83
20 546.1430 0.082303 158.4203 57086.25
The main goal of producing the nondominated solutions in the proposed MDFR problem is obtaining the
best compromised solution based on the networks conditions. In this regard, the goal attainment
optimization (GAO) approach is applied to choose the best compromised solution among them. It is noted
that in the GAO approach the importance of objective functions should be determined. For this mean, w
i
refers to the importance of the objective functions such that
=
=
objective
N
i
i
w
1
1
. The results of implementing the
GAO method over Paretooptimal solutions are presented in Table 9. In this table, some combinations of
decision maker preferences over objective functions are considered using w
i
. In order to highlight the
differences of the multiobjective and single objective problems, a detailed comparison between the
singleobjective problem (cases I to IV) and multiobjective cases (cases V to IX), based on the most
preferred solution obtained by the goal attainment approach, is presented in Table 9. As seen in Table 9,
based on the concern of objectives the decision maker must select proper w
i
, for example, the results of
implementing five sets of weight factors for the decision making process in case IX outperformthe multi
objective framework.
b) Error analysis
The student Ttest is used as a tool for comparing the results of the proposed algorithmand the others,
the results of which are shown in Table 10 for f1. It is noted that the purpose of the Ttest is to check the
null hypothesis. As illustrated in Table 10, the value of H equals one. That means there is a rejection of the
null hypothesis at 5% significance level and a statistical significance of difference between the results of
the proposed algorithm and the original SFLA and HBMO algorithms.
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
63
Table 9. Objective functions values in all cases
Case
Importance
W
1
W
2
W
3
W
4
f
1
f
2
f
3
f
4
I     441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
II     515.4961 0.058774 159.2710 57554.07
III     448.3251 0.097287 114.0577 58330.14
IV     646.5195 0.096197 205.3344 56473.97
V 0 0.33 0.33 0.33  0.083610 123.9146 58791.69
0 0.2 0.4 0.4  0.110342 125.0328 58467.67
0 0.4 0.2 0.4  0.078818 189.1315 56510.25
0 0.4 0.4 0.2  0.069859 129.8056 58136.00
VI 0.33 0 0.33 0.33 657.7744  129.8813 57677.05
0.2 0 0.4 0.4 688.4688  129.9661 57646.52
0.4 0 0.2 0.4 596.9297  131.1091 57569.06
0.4 0 0.4 0.2 665.2046  122.5073 58520.21
VII 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 660.7886 0.099052  57645.11
0.4 0.4 0 0.2 571.2811 0.072113  57837.40
0.4 0.2 0 0.4 620.7127 0.094659  56704.26
0.2 0.4 0 0.4 597.3585 0.081775  56505.33
VIII 0.33 0.33 0.33 0 764.4281 0.119513 122.6722 
0.2 0.4 0.4 0 676.0573 0.082331 120.4710 
0.4 0.2 0.4 0 669.2148 0.082483 151.3135 
0.4 0.4 0.2 0 593.2881 0.082162 176.8827 
IX 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 441.4653 0.061220 164.1146 56759.57
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
64
Table 10. Results of Ttest for f1
H significance
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference(c
i
)
Lower Upper
SFLA 1 0 6.64545247722642 7.08394752277363
HBMO 1 0 1.6619904074008 2.06740959259925
6. CONCLUSION
In most of the multiobjective optimization problems, the decision maker must handle several conflicting
objectives simultaneously. This paper developed a hybrid MHBMOSFLA algorithmfor solving Multi
objective Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration problem considering DG units. The proposed method aims
at minimizing the real power loss, deviation of the nodes voltage, emission of DG units and cost of DG
units. One of the most important advantages of the multiobjective formulation is that it gives several non
dominated solutions allowing the systemoperator to exercise his/her personal preference in selecting any
one of those solutions for the implementation. The proposed algorithmutilizes the concept of Pareto
optimality. In the proposed algorithm, to improve the performance of original HBMO, it was combined
with SFLA algorithm. In this paper an external repository has been considered to save nondominated
solutions found during the search process. In order to control the size of the repository, a fuzzybased
clustering has been used.
REFERENCES
1. Ouyang, W., Cheng, H., Zhang, X. & Yao, L. (2010). Distribution network planning method considering
distributed generationfor peak cutting. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 51, pp. 23942401.
2. Jurado, F. & Cano, A. (2006). Optimal placement of biomass fuelled gas turbines for reduced losses. Energy
Conversion and Management. Vol. 47, Nos. 1516, pp. 267381.
3. Wijayatunga, P., Fernando, W. & Shrestha, R. (2004). Impact of distributed and independent power generation
on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 45, No. 20, pp. 3193206.
4. Kim, H., Ko, Y. & Jung, K. H. (1993). Artificial neuralnetwork based feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction
in distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Power Del, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 13561366.
5. Shirmohammadi, D. & Hong, H. W. (1989). Reconfiguration of electric distribution networks for resistive line
loss reduction. IEEE Trans. Power System, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 14921498.
6. Taylor, T. & Lubkeman, D. (1990). Implementation of heuristic search strategies for distribution feeder
reconfiguration. IEEE Trans. Power Del, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 239245.
7. Kashem, M. A., Ganapathy, V. & Jasmon, G. B. (1999). Network reconfiguration for load balancing in
distribution networks. Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.Gener., Transm, Distrib, Vol. 146, pp. 563567.
8. Jeon, Y. J. & Kim, J. C. (2000). Network reconfiguration in radial distribution system using simulated annealing
and tabu search. Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, pp. 2327.
9. Chiou, J. & Chang, C. (2005). Variable scaling hybrid differential evaluation for solving network
reconfiguration of distribution system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., Vol. 20, No. 2, pp, 668674.
10. Ahuja, A., Sanjoy, D. & Pahwa, A. (2007). An AISACO hybrid approach for multiobjective distribution
system reconfiguration. IEEE Trans. on Power System, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 11011111.
11. Niknam, T. & Azad Farsani, E. (2010). A hybrid evolutionary algorithm for distribution feeder reconfiguration.
Sci China Tech Sci, Vol. 53, pp. 950959.
12. Niknam, T. & Azad Farsani, E. (2010). A hybrid selfadaptive particle swarm optimization and modified
shuffled frog leaping algorithm for distribution feeder reconfiguration. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, 2010:doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.02.005.
13. Arun, M. & Aravindhababu, P. (2009). A new reconfiguration scheme for voltage stability enhancement of
radial distribution systems. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 50, pp. 21482151.
A new hybrid HBMOSFLA algorithm formultiobjective
June 2012 IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1
65
14. Niknam, T. (2009). An efficient hybrid evolutionary algorithm based on PSO and HBMO algorithms for multi
objective distribution feeder reconfiguration. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 50, No. 8, pp. 2074
2082.
15. Niknam, T., Azad Farsani, E. & Nayreipour, M. (2010). An efficient multiobjective modified shuffled frog
leaping algorithm for distribution feeder reconfiguration problem. European Transaction on Electrical Power,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 721739.
16. Vanderson, F., Gomes, S., Carneiro, J. L. R., Pereira., M. P. V., Garcia, P. A. N. & Ramos Araujo, L. (2005). A
new heuristic reconfiguration algorithm for large distribution systems. IEEE Tran on Power Systems. Vol. 20,
No. 3, pp. 13731378.
17. Wu, Y., Lee, C., Liu, L. & Tsai, S. (2010). Study of reconfiguration for the distribution system with distributed
generators. IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 25, NO. 3, pp. 16781685.
18. Vinicius, F. & Carmen, L. T. (2011). Active distribution network integrated planning incorporating distributed
generation and Load response uncertainties. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp 21642172.
19. Chang, R. F., Chen, S. J., Chang, Y. C. & Lu, C. N. (2010). Modified particle swarm optimization for solving
distribution feeder reconfiguration problem with distributed generation. TENCON 2010  2010 IEEE Region 10
Conference.
20. Shu Jun, Y., Zhi, Y. , Yan, W., Yu Xin, Y. & Xiao Yan, S. (2011). Distribution network reconfiguration with
distributed power based on genetic algorithm. DRPT 2011.
21. Li, D., Wang, S., Zhan, J. & Zhao, Y. (2011). A selfhealing reconfiguration technique for smart distribution
networks with DGs. ICECE 2011.
22. Bahmanifirouzi, B. (2007). Distribution feeder reconfiguration in the new environment distribution networks.
Proceedings of the 4th IEEE GCC Conference, Manama, Bahrain.
23. Niknam, T., Ranjbar, A. M. & Shirani, A. R. (2003). Volt/Var control in distribution networks with distributed
generation. IFAC Conference, pp. 110510.
24. Atashkari, K., Nariman Zadeh, N., Golcu, M., Khalkhali, A. & Jamali, A. (2007). Modelling and multi
objective optimization of a variable valvetiming sparkignition engine using polynomial neural networks and
evolutionary algorithms. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 48, pp. 10291041.
25. Sayyaadi, H., Hadaddi Amlashi, E. & Amidpour, M. (2009). Multiobjective optimization of a vertical ground
source heat pump using evolutionary algorithm. Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 50, 20352046.
26. Shivaie, M., Sepasian, M. S., Sheikheleslami, M. K. (2011). Multiobjective transmission expansion planning
using fuzzygenetic algorithm. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical
Engineering, Vol. 35, No. E2, pp. 141159.
27. Rajabi Mashhadi, M., Ghazizadeh, M. S. & Javidi, M. H. (2011). Improving simultaneous scheduling of primary
reserve and energy utilizing fast ramp rate capability of generating. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology,
Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Vol. 35, No. E2, pp. 109125.
28. Siahi, M., Porkar, S., Abbaspour tehranifard, A., Poure, P. & Saadate, S. (2010). Competitive distribution system
planning model integration of DG, interruptible load and voltage regulator devices. Iranian Journal of Science
and Technology, Transaction B: Engineering, 2010, Vol. 34, No. B6, pp. 619635.
29. Afshar, A., Haddad, O. B., Marino, M. A. & Adams, B. J. (2007). Honeybee mating optimization (HBMO)
algorithm for optimal reservoir operation. Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 344, pp. 452462.
30. Fathian, M., Amiri, B. & Maroosi, A. (2007). Application of honeybee mating optimization algorithm on
clustering. Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 190, pp. 15021513.
31. Eusuff, M. & Lansey, K. (2003). Optimization of water distribution network design using the shuffled frog
leaping algorithm. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 129, No. 2, pp. 1025.
32. Xuncai Zhang, Xuemei Hu, Guangzhao Cui, Yanfeng Wang, Ying Niu. (2008). An improved shuffled frog
leaping algorithm with cognitive behavior. IEEE Intelligent Control and Automation, pp. 61976202.
APPENDIX
Emission factors for NO
x
, CO2 and SO
2
.
B. Bahmanifirouzi et al.
IJST, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, Volume 36, Number E1 June 2012
66
Table A. Emission factors for NOx, CO2 and SO2
Emission Type
Emission factors (lb/MWh)
Internal
Combustion(IC)
Fuel cell Micro
turbine
Gas
turbine
Grid
NO
x
4.7 1.15 0.44 0.03 5.06
CO
2
1432 1108 1596 1078 2031
SO
2
0.454 0.008 0.008 0.006 7.9
Table B. Threephase load and line data of the case study
us to bus Section
resistance
()
Section
reactance
()
End bus
real load
(kw)
End bus
reactive
load
(kv Ar)
Bus to bus Section
resistance
()
Section
reactance
()
End bus
real load
(kw)
End bus
reactive
load
(kv Ar)
A1 0.1944 0.6624 0 0 4849 0.0655 0.1345 0 0
12 0.2096 0.4304 100 50 4950 0.0393 0.0807 200 160
23 0.2358 0.4842 300 200 5051 0.0786 0.1614 800 600
34 0.0917 0.1883 350 250 5152 0.0393 0.0807 500 300
45 0.2096 0.4304 220 100 5253 0.0786 0.1614 500 350
56 0.0393 0.0807 1100 800 5354 0.0524 0.1076 500 300
67 0.0405 0.1380 400 320 5455 0.1310 0.2690 200 80
78 0.1048 0.2152 300 200 H56 0.2268 0.7728 0 0
79 0.2358 0.4842 300 230 5657 0.5371 1.1029 30 20
710 0.1048 0.2152 300 260 5758 0.0524 0.1076 600 420
B11 0.0786 0.1614 0 0 5859 0.0405 0.1380 0 0
1112 0.3406 0.6944 1200 800 5960 0.0393 0.0807 20 10
1213 0.0262 0.0538 800 600 6061 0.0262 0.0538 20 10
1214 0.0786 0.1614 700 500 6162 0.1048 0.2152 200 130
C15 0.1134 0.3864 0 0 6263 0.2358 0.4842 300 240
1516 0.0524 0.1076 300 150 6364 0.0243 0.0828 300 200
1617 0.0524 0.1976 500 350 I65 0.0486 0.1656 0 0
1718 0.1572 0.3228 700 400 6566 0.1703 0.3497 50 30
1819 0.0393 0.0807 1200 1000 6667 0.1215 0.4140 0 0
1920 0.1703 0.3497 300 300 6768 0.2187 0.7452 400 360
2021 0.2358 0.4842 400 350 6869 0.0486 0.1656 0 0
2122 0.1572 0.3228 50 20 6970 0.0729 0.2484 0 0
2123 0.1965 0.4035 50 20 7071 0.0567 0.1932 2000 1500
2324 0.1310 0.2690 50 10 7172 0.0262 0.0528 200 150
D25 0.0567 0.1932 50 30 J 73 0.3240 1.1040 0 0
2526 0.1048 0.2152 100 60 7374 0.0324 0.1104 0 0
2627 0.2489 0.5111 100 70 7475 0.0567 0.1932 1200 950
2728 0.0486 0.1656 1800 1300 7576 0.0486 0.1656 300 180
2829 0.1310 0.2690 200 100 K77 0.2511 0.8556 0 0
E30 0.1965 0.3960 0 0 7778 0.1296 0.4416 400 360
3031 0.1310 0.2690 1800 1600 7879 0.0486 0.1656 2000 1300
3132 0.1310 0.2690 200 150 7980 0.1310 0.2640 200 140
3233 0.0262 0.0538 200 100 8081 0.1310 0.2640 500 360
3334 0.1703 0.3497 800 600 8182 0.0917 0.1883 100 30
3435 0.0524 0.1076 100 60 8283 0.3144 0.6456 400 360
3536 0.4978 1.0222 100 60
T
i
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
e
s
555 0.1310 0.2690
3637 0.0393 0.0807 20 10 760 0.1310 0.2690
3738 0.0393 0.0807 20 10 1143 0.1310 0.2690
3839 0.0786 0.1614 20 10 1272 0.3406 0.6994
3940 0.2096 0.4304 20 10 1376 0.4585 0.9415
3841 0.1965 0.4035 200 160 1418 0.5371 1.0824
4142 0.2096 0.4304 50 30 1626 0.0917 0.1883
F43 0.0486 0.1656 0 0 2083 0.0786 0.1614
4344 0.0393 0.0807 30 20 2832 0.0524 0.1076
4445 0.1310 0.2690 800 700 2939 0.0786 0.1614
4546 0.2358 0.4842 200 150 3446 0.0262 0.0538
G47 0.2430 0.8280 0 0 4042 0.1965 0.4035
4748 0.0655 0.1345 0 0 5364 0.0393 0.0807