A Computer Package for Optimal Multi-objective VAR
Planning in Large Scale Power Systems
Ying-Tung Hsiao Hsiao-Dong Chiang
Dept of Electrical Engineering School of Electrical Engineering
ST. John’s & ST. Mary’s Institute of Tech Cornel1 University,
Taiwan, R.O.C. Ithaca,
Abstract
This paper presents a pimulated annealing based computer pack-
age for multi-objective, planning in large scale power systems
- SAMVAR. This computer package has three distinct features.
First, the optimal VAR planning is reformulated as a constrained,
multi-objective, non-differentiable optimization problem. The new
formulation considers four different objective functions related to
system investment, system operational efficiency, system security
and system service quality. The new formulation also takes into
consideration load, operation and contingency constraints. Sec-
ond, i t allows both the objective functions and equality and in-
equality constraints to be non-differentiable; making the problem
formulation more realistic. Third, the package employs a two-stage
solution algorithm based on a n extended simulated annealing tech-
nique and the e-constraint method. The first-stage of the solution
algorithm uses a n extended simulated annealing technique to find
a global, non-inferior solution. The results obtained from the first-
stage provide a basis for planners to prioritize the objective func-
tions such that a primary objective function is chosen and trade-
off tolerances for the other objective functions are set. The pri-
mary objective function and the trade-off tolerances are then used
to transform the constrained multi-objective optimization problem
into a single-objective optimization problem with more constraints
by employing the e-constraint method. The second-stage uses the
simulated annealing technique to find the global optimal solution.
A salient feature of SAMVAR is that it allows planners to find
an acceptable, global non-inferior solution for the VAR problem.
Simulation results indicate that SAMVAR has the ability to han-
dle the multi-objective VAR planning problem and meet with the
planner’s requirements.
Introduction
During the last decade there has been a growing concern in the
Reactive Volt Ampere (VAR) sources planningproblem [l-161. The
issues of the problem are to determine (i) the locations to install
VAR sources, (ii) the types and sizes of VAR sources to be installed,
and (iii) the settings of VAR sources a t different loadingconditions,
such that a desired objective function, say the capacitor cost in
conjunction with energy loss reduction, is minimized while load
constraints and operational constraints are met with respect to
credible contingencies .
Ca 1993 IEEE
0-7803-1301-1/93%03.00
146
Chun-Cliang Liu Yuan-Lin Chen
Dept of Electrical Engineering
National Taiwan University
NY 14853 Taiwan, R.O.C.
Traditionally, the VAR sources planning problem has been for-
mulated as a single objective function problem. In practice, power
system planners are usually confronted with multiple (planning)
objective functions and these objective functions are generally in
conflict with each other. These conflicting objectives (e.g. minimiz-
-
ing costs and environmental impacts, while maximizing operational
effciency, service quality, and reliability) must be dealt with great
care. Furthermore, it is often the case that these objective func-
tions are non-commensurable so that they can not be combined
into a single objective function.
This paper presents a eimulated annealing based computer pack-
age for multi-objective, planning in large scale power systems
- SAMVAR. This computer package has several strong features.
The optimal VAR planning is reformulated as a constrained, multi-
objective, non-differentiable optimization problem. The new for-
mulation considers four different objective functions related to sys-
tem investment, system operational efficiency, system security and
system service quality. The new formulation also takes into con-
sideration load, operation and contingency constraints. Further-
more, it allows both the objective functions and the equality and
inequality constraints to be non-differentiable; making the problem
formulation more realistic.
The package employs a two-stage solution algorithm based on
an extended simulated annealing technique and the r-constraint
method. The first-stage of the solution a l g o r i h n uses an extended
simulated annealing technique to find a global, non-inferior so-
lution. The extended simulated annealing technique extends the
simulated annealing technique to constrained multi-objective opti-
mization problems. The results obtained froin the first-stage pro-
vide a basis for planners to prioritize the objective functions such
that a primary objective function is chosen and trade-off tolerances
for the other objective functions are set. The primary objective
function and the trade-off tolerances are then used to transform
the constrained multi-objective optimization problem into a single-
objectiveoptimization problem with more constraints by employing
the e-constraint method. The second-stage uses the simulated an-
nealing technique to find the global optimal solution. Based on the
results obtained from the second-stage, the planners then repriori-
tize the objective functions such that a primary objective function
is chosen and trade-off tolerances for other objectivc functions are
reset. In this iterative way, SAhl\’AR allows planners to find an
acceptable, global non-inferior S O ~ ~ I L ~for
O I Ithe VAR problem. Sim-
ulation results on the IEEE 30-bus system and a 35&bus system in-
dicate that SAMVAR has the ability to handle the multi-objective
VAR planiiing problem and to ineeL the planner’s requirenients.
P rob 1em For mu1at i on
In this section, a new formulation of the optimal VAR plan-
ning problem as a constrained, non-differentiable, multi-objective
optimization problem is presented.
Objective F u n c t i o n s VAR planning may not d e c t real line flow very much. Also, it
Four objective functions which are of considerable concern to may l e difficult to specify the MW capacity limit of a transmis-
system planners are discussed. The first one addresses loss reduc- sion line in the VAR planning problem. Under tliese situations, it
tion (operational efficiency). The second one is related to VAR may be preferable to include either the VAR flow limits, the MVA
sources expenditures such M purchase, installment and mainte- limits or the current limits of transmission lines or transformers as
nance (minimum investment). The third and fourth objectives are constraints in the formulation.
related to voltage profile and line flow overload respectively (system
security and service quality). Load C o n s t r a i n t
The load constraints are the real and reactive power balance
Loss Reduction described by a set of power flow equations which can be expressed
The objective is to minimize the total real power losses arising in a compact form:
from line branches, which can be calculated as follows :
F(z,u,z)= 0 (5)
nr where x is the state variable, U is the control variable and z is tlie
size of VARs.
ksl
Operational Constraint
where nI is the total line branches in the system, c k ( i , j ) is the The following operational constraints: voltage magnitude, real
conductance of line k connected between bus i and bus j, Vi is the and reactive power generations, transformer tap changing, and
voltage magnitude a t bus i and 6, is the voltage angle a t bus i. maximum VAR injection are considered.
Vim'n 5 vi 5 vimas i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n b
pmgJ i n 5 PgJ PE"' j = 1 , 2 , ...,n9
VAR Conairuction Expenditures
The expenditures of VAR construction is comprised of two 97''
5 Q g k 5 Q T k = 1 , 2 , ...,ng
terms. The first term represents the purchase cost, and the sec- TImin5 Tl 5 T,"'oz I = 1,2, ...,nt
ond term represents the installment and maintenance cost:
0 5 zm 5 z ~ " m~= 1 , 2 , ...,np
where ng and n, are the total number of generators and transform-
ers in the system respectively. These constraints can be expressed
in the following compact form:
J'I

where np is the total possible locations to place VAR, zJ is the G(z,u,z) IO (6)
size of the VAR a t location j, C c ( z J )is the purchase cost of a
VAR with size zJ and C,'(zJ) represents the cost associated with Contingency C o n s t r a i n t
the VAR installment and maintenance a t location j. In general, Suppose that there are nc contingency cases to be consid-
C c ( z J )is a steplike function, thus a non-dinerentiable function. ered. These contingencies can be translated into the following con-
straints: load flow constraints and operational constraints.
Deviafion of Voltage
Bus voltage is one of the most important security and service Fk(xk,u k ,z k ) = 0 k = 1 , 2 , ...,nc (5)
quality indexes. In the literature, bus voltage limits have been Gk(z",U k , zk) 5 0 k = l , 2 , ...,nc (8)
treated as constraints. This practice very often makes all the volt-
ages move toward their respective maximum limits after optimiza- where superscript k represents the contingency states for tlie nc
tion procedures. One effective way to avoid this occurence is to contingency cases.
choose the deviation of voltage from a specified value as an objec-
tive function. The objective function representing the deviation of Overall P r o b l e m
voltage can be described as : In summary, the multi-objectiveoptimal VAR planning problem
is formulated as the following :
(3)

where t1b is the total buses of the system, V, is the voltage mag- k t l
nitude in bus I, V:pec is the specified voltage magnitude in bus I nu
and AVImas is tlie maximum allowable voltage deviation limit a t
bus 1.

Deviation of Line F l o w
Overloading in transmission lines can- lead to system collapse
in extreme cases. This prompts the use of another objective to
minimize line flow overload: in every transmission line.

(4)
such that
where n1 is the total lines of the system, Pm is the MVA flow in F(x,u,z)= 0 (load constraint)
line m, PApec is the MVA capacity limit of line m and A P E a s is G(z,u, z ) 5 0 (operaiional constraint)
a specified allowable line flow deviation limit. Fk(zk,uk,zk) = o (load contingency constraint)
It should be pointed out that depending on the network struc- Gk(.zk,u k ,z k ) 5 o (operational contingency constraint)
ture and the loading condition of the power system under study, k = 1.2, ...,nc

147
The above problem formulation is a multi-objective, non-
diflerentiable optimization problem with both functional equality
and inequality constraints. A great portion of existing optiniiza-
tion techniques are not capable of eflectively deal with these types
of problems.
Mu 1ti- obje ct i ve 0p t i m i zat i on Prob 1ems
A general multi-objectiveoptimization problem can be expressed
as roilow:
) [ c ~ ( I ) , c...,c,(z)IT
m i n ~ ( z= ~(I), (13)
I
such that
ZER
F(z)= 0
50
where z is a decision vector, R is a non-empty constraint domain
(decision space or solution space) and C;(z), i = l , 2 , ...,m are the
objective functions which are usually in conflict with each other
and are incommcnsurable.
Generally, it is impossible to obtain an optimal solution a t which
all objective functions are optimized. In this case, the concept of
non-inferiority (also known as efficiency or Pareto optimality) is
used to characterize the solution to the multi-objective problem.
The detail of this concept can be found, for example, in [19].
Definition: The feasible region R is the set of state vectors x that
satisfy the constraints, i.e. R = {z : F ( z ) = 0,G(z) 5 0)
Definition: A point 4 E R is a local non-inferior point if there
exists an c > 0 such that in the neighborhood N ( i , c ) of i,there
exists no other point I such that (1) C,(z) 5 C,(i),i = 1 , 2 , ...,m
and ( 2 ) C,(z) < Cj(4),for some j E { 1 , 2 , , ...,m}.
In other words, 4 is a local non-inferior point if there exists a
neighborhood N(4,r) s u c h that for any other point z E N(4,c),
a t least one component of C will increase its value relative to its
value a t 4 or C;(z) = C,(4),i= 1 , 2 , ...,ni. A non-inferiorsolution
of the multi-objective problem is one wliere any improvement of
one objective function can be achieved only a t the expense of a t
least one of the other objectives. Figure 1 illustrates the concepts
of tlie local and global non-inferior solutions. In general there are
an infinite number of (global) non-inferior points for a given multi-
objective problem; making the task of finding t.lie collection of such
points called the non-inferior set estremely diflicult.
Definition: A point i E R is a global non-inferior point if and only
if there exists no other point z such that ( 1 ) C,(z) 5 C,(4),i=
1 , 2 , ...,m and (2) C,(I)< CJ(i),for some j E { 1 , 2 ,..., m}.
There are a t least three (conceptual) methods which can gen-
erate the entire non-inferior set: the weighting sum method, Lhe
kth-objective method and the c-constraint method. Since the E-
constraint method will be incorporated into a solution methodology
t.0 be developed for the optimal VAR planning, we briefly discuss
this method.
T h e E-constraint method
Let us return to the general multkobjective problem (13).
Choose (for whatever reason) the Nth objective as the primary ob-
jective function and convert the other objective functions as con-
straints. This method then solves the resultant single-objective
optimization problem as follows:
minCN (z)
such that
XER
Ci(z) 5 E,, i = 1 , 2 , 3 , ...,m; i # IV,
F ( I ) = 0,
G ( z ) 5 0,
A systematic variation of E ' S will generate the entire non-inferior
set. It should be pointed out that the computational cost to find
148
I c2
Figure 1: Global and local non-inferior points in objec-
tive functions space.
the entire non-inferior set is usually very high, if not impossible.
Also, the existing methods (e.g. the above three methods) to find
the entire non-inferior set are based on the presumption that a
method which can find the global optimal point for single objective
problems is available.
From a practical point of view, a more desirable method for the
multi-objective problem would be the one that allow the designer to
find a desirable, global non-inferior solution in a reasonable amount
of computation cost. To this end, S A M V A R uses a two-stage solu-
tion algorithm to find a desirable global non-inferior solution chosen
by a planner. This solution algorithm is to be discussed in the next
section.
A Two-Stage Solution Algorithim
The first-stage of the solution algorithm uses an extended sim-
ulated annealing technique to find a global, non-inferior solution.
The key element in extending the original simulated annealing tedi-
nique to find a global, non-inferior solution is the coordination of
both perturbation scheme and the acceptance criterion. In order
to handle multiple objective functions, we propose to coordinate
both perturbation mechanisms and the acceptance criterion in the
following way: a t each temperature T k , a control parameter, the
following procedure is repeatedly executed:
1 . Apply a perturbation mechanism x &
2. Check the feasibility
- zk+l
if F ( z ~ + I=)0 and G ( z k + l ) 5 0, go to 3;
Otherwise go to 1 .
3. Set Z k = Z k + l
if one of the following conditions is satisfied
4Ck 5 0 for all k = 1 , 2 , ....m
min[exp(-)] 2 randomio, 1 1 , k = 1 . 2 ,...,m
Otherwise, leave it unchanged.
Note that the search direction of the above procedure does not re-
quire the differentiability property associated with both the objec-
tive functions and the constraint functions. Hence, the extended
simulated annealing technique is applicable to non-differentiable
multi-objective optimization problems.
The second-stage consists of the c-constraint method and the
simulated annealing technique for the constrained single-objectiw
optimization problems. The results obtained from the first-stage
provide a basis for designers to prioritize tlie objective functions
such that a primary objective function is chosen and trade-ofI (01-
erances for the other objective functions are set. With these, the
constrained multi-objective optimization problem is transformed
into a single-objcctive optimization problem with more constraints
by employing the E-constraint method. The simulated annealing
technique is I lien applied to the single-objective optimizat ion prob-
lem to find the global optimal solution. Based on the results ob-
tained from the second-stage, the designer can, if not satisfied with
the results, prioritize the objective functions again such that a pri-
mary objective function is chosen and trade-off tolerances for other
objective functions are set. In this iterative way, the two-stage s e
lution algorithm allows the designer to find an accepcable, global llnput system data & control parameter(
non-inferior solution. A summarized version of the two-stage solu-
tion algorithm is shown below:
~

Stage 1: Find a global non-inferior point for the multi-

objective optimization problem using the extended SA tech-
nique to be presented below. Let the point obtained a t tliis
stage be x* , and E; = C ( x * ) j, = 1,2, ...,m . Also, suppose
tlie designer chooses C N be the primary objective function.
~
G e n e r a a new configuration,Zn
I

Stage 2: Apply the SA technique (for single objective func-

tion) to the following problem which is obtained by the a p
plication of the c-constraint method to (13).

such that
minCN ( 2 )
fi
I
na+l
Q
Pmform load no

X E f l Fcasi bility
C,(x)5 E: + Ac,, i = 1 , 2 , 3,...,m ; t # N ,

where At,
F ( x ) = 0,
G(z) 5 0 ,
> 0 is a trade-off tolerance made by the designer.

A Solution Algorithm for VAR

In this section, we apply the tw+stage solution algorithm to the
eDcterminc control setting

Calculatc the diffcrcnce costs

Ei(Zn)=Ci(zn+l )-Ci(zn),for i=l,2,....m
VAR planning problem. In the first stage, we seek a global non-
inferior point by applying the extended SA technique to solve (9)
-( 12). Suppose that the global non-inferior costs obtained from the

*
first stage are c : , i = 1,2,3,4,
and the planner would like the real
power losses be further reduced. Then, in the second stage, we
solve the following:
"I

CI = m i n x G q , , J ) [I/:
z
+ V; - 2 ~ , ~ ~ c o s-( bbJ, ) ] (1-1)
k=l Canfiguration=newconfiguration
subject to

*
1 Yes
1

1=1 ' 1 /

Output non-inferior solution

I'igure 2: Tlic flow chart of tlie Stage 1 i n SARI\'XR.

Stage 1 seeks a global rion-inferior point by applying tlic
cstended Simulated Annealing technique.

where E, = E: + A € , is a trade-ofT preference made by the designer.

iVe next present a computer algorithm for the first stage to seek R
global non-inferior point for the VAR planning problem. Because
the computer algorithm for the second stage is similar to the one
we developed in [17,18], it will not be repeated here.
Computer Algorithm

149
Step 1: Input system data and control parameters.
I l l ~ J l l system
t data and control parameters such as the initial
temperature, random number seed, cooling rate, the step size
of control setting and the number of moves a t each tempera- 1
ture.
S t e p 2: Design a proper global cooling schedule.
At each temperature Tk,perform a nuniLer of n k moves. For
mov=l,2, ...,n k , do steps 3 - i . Otherwise, proceed to step 8.
S t e p 3: Generate a new feasible configuration.
(i) Generate a new configuration Z k + ] by perturLing the cur-
rent state 21; using a perturbation mecliaiiism.
(ii) For peak load level, run a load flow to check the feasibility.
If any constraint is violated, go to (i). Otherwise, proceed to
(iii).
-
(iii) Calculate AC,(zk) = C,(zk+l) C , ( z k ) for i=1,2, ...,m.
For each off-peak load levclJ=2, ..., n d , d o step 4 below, where
w e use S A togeiher with a local cooling schedule t o determine
the control setting at each off-peak load level.
S t e p 4(a): Design a local cooling schedule.
Use the cooling schedule with the initial temperature T ~ I .
S t e p 4(b): At each temperature T ~ I ,
perform a number of nr;, Perform load flow
moves. For submov=l,2, ..., n k ~ do
, step 4(c) and 4(d). 0 t h -
erwise, proceed to step 4(e).
S t e p 4(c): Generate a new control setting.
( i ) Generate a new configuration using a perturbation mech-
anism with the current control setting a t peak-load level as
the upper limit.
(ii) Run a load flow to check the feasibility. U any constraint 1 No
is violated, go to (i). Otherwise, proceed to (iii).
(iii) Calculate the mal power losses.
Step 4(d): Update the system configuration.
I Calculale &he diffaence cost
BF=exp(- &IT)
&

Use real power losses as the objective function to determine

the system configuration (control setting). Retain the new
configuration or restore to the previous configuration based
on the acceptance criterion.

<>
S t e p 4(e): Check the stop criterion.
If the stop criterion is not satisfied, then go to step 4(a).
Otherwise, proceed to the next step.
S t e p 8 : Check the global feasibility and calculate the total objec-
tive functions.
h Accepr ncw configuration

( i ) U all the control settings obtained for j=2,3, ...,nd arc fen-
sible, then retain these control setting. Otherwise, restore to No lengh reach
previous control settings a t each load levels.
( i i ) Calculate the total objective functions.
S t e p G: Update the system configuration.
If (i) AC,(zk) 5 0 for all i=1.2 ,..., m or
( i i ) Boltzman-Factor(BF) = m t n [ e x p ( y ) ,e x p ( T ) , r-
..., exp(*)], and E F _< random[O, 1 )
then retain tlie new configuration zk+] (i.e. accept tlie per-
t urbation).
Olherwise, restore to the previous configuration : I (i.e. dis-
card the perturbation).
Step 7 : Check the stop criterion.
If the stop criterion is not satisfied, then the systein is not
yet frozen and continue the process by returning to step 3.
Otherwise, proceed to next step. I
I
Output trade-off solution I
I

S t e p 8: Print out the optimal solution.

The output of the above solution algorithm gives the optimal Figure 3: The flow chart of the Stage 2 in SAM\'AR.
control setting vector ( 2 1 ,z2,...,z,,,), here z, = (2: ,::, ..., z y d ) Stage 2 seeks a trade-off design by using the simulatetl
and 2: is the control setting of bus i at load level j. Accordingly,
annealing techni clue and the &-const rai lied i n et hod.
the size vector , I O , can be derived usii~gthe relationship 2: 5 z f ,
i = 1,2, ...,ne, where 2: is the smallest non-negativenumber wliich

150
is multiple of the standard size of one bank. Then, the size vector
zo is used to detennine the locations and corresponding sizes of
VARs to be installed. The types of VARS to be installed a t bus i Table 2: Configuration results on case 1
is determined by the control setting vector, z,, using the following
rule: Locations
If z,’ = Z: = ... = 2:” then a fixed VAR with size zp is to be number of iterations (temperatures) : 12
installed a t bus i; otherwise, a switched VAR with size zp is number of perturbations a t each temperature : 30
CPU time : 93 seconds
to be installed a t bus i.
Based on the two-stage solution algorithm presented above, a com-
-
puter program SAMVAR has been developed in C language. A
flow chart showing the major steps of the two stages in SAMVAR
is depicted in Figure 2 and 3. A careful examination of Figure 2
and 3 should prove useful in understanding the algorithmic nature Table 3: Cost results on Case 2 (30-bus system)
of the twestage solution algorithm. I Results I - .- Objectives
, ,-.
+
GI
I”.\

C v (*J
I h

“dv “df
Numerical Results Initial 4320432 122.64 0.979
In this section, the IEEE 30-bus system and a 358-bus realistic Stage 1 3773808 9.19 0.236
power system are used to demonstrate the capability of the pr.0-
posed two-stage solution algorithm which can handle the optimal
multi-objective VAR planning problem with a (pre-defined) trade-
off design.
We used the following data: VAR cost, fixed installment and
maintenance cost = 1000%and purchase cost = 900 $/bank; energy
cost = 0.06 $/I<wh; one bank = 300 Kvar for the IEEE 30-bus
system and 14.4 Mvar for the 358bus system. In the IEEE 30-bus 358 buses and 439 branches. In order to test the contingency cases,
system, the reactive power loads are modified as twice the original there are four generators out of their Q-limit values in the initial
value. Two cases are used to illustrate the flexibility of SAMVAR state. The same four different object.ive functions and the same
to handle different multiple objectives in this test system. trade-off preferencesas Case 1 were used; and the simulation results
C u e 1 : A (global) non-inferior solution obtained from the first- are shown in Table 4.
stage gives four objective function values. After a careful evalu-
ation, a planner desires the real power losses be further reduced;
the cost of VAR expenditures be a t most increased another 10 per-
cent: and the deviation of bus voltages and line flows be kept the
same as or less than those of stage 1. In other words, in the second
stage (trade-off design stage) the planner selects the trade-off pref- Results Objectives
erence as follows: the VAR construction expenditures Acv = 0 . 1 ~ : . CI (Mw) Cv ($1 cdv cdf
and &Edv = A c d f = 0 for the deviation of voltage and h e flow Initial 307.7 - 9474.3 5662
respectively. The results of Case 1 are shown in Table 1. Stage1 255.2 2395 3860.5 5475

Table 1: Cost results on Case 1 (30-bus system)

I Results I Obiectives I
CI (Mw) C v ($) cdv cdf
Initial 8.22 - 122.64 0.979 From these results, we have the following observations:
Stare 1 7.18 1323 9.19 0.236 SAMVAR has the ability to handle the multi-objective VAR
Planner’s preference: planning problem and meet the planner’s requirements.
Acv = 0.1~:
VAR planning is a decision process which attempts to resolve
multiple-conflicting objectives like economy and investment.
The second-stage (the trade-off stage) of SAMVAR allows the
planner to find an acceptable, global non-inferior solution.
Table 2 summarizes the number of banks of new VAR to be A variety of objectives, not necessarily just ICWh (or dollars),
installed and their locations (buses). The optimal configuration is exist; and it is impossible to get a solution that is optimal for
attained after 1 2 temperatures (iterations) for stage 1 and stage 2. every objective.
The required CPU time in this case is 93 seconds on a Sun Sparc
I workstation. e From the simulation results, the existence of trade-off deci-
Case 2 : In this case, we combine C1 with C, into one objective sions among investment (VAR cost), economy (power flow
loss) and security (deviation of voltage and line flow) for the
k. x:,
function (the h4W loss is converted into a cost function (S) by
T,cl, where k, is the energy cost per unit, n d is the total
number of load levels and Tj is the duration of load level j ) . The
VAR problem is demonstrated. Thus, the need for multiple
objective functions is clear.
trade-off preferences were set a t &Edv = O.laiv, A C d f = 0.1~;~. The trade-off design of the second stage helps solve a difficull
The results of case 2 are shown in Table 3. problem which has conflicting multiple objectives.
The purpose of Case 3 is to evaluate the practical utility of
SAMVAR. This particular system is a realistic power system with Con cl us i o 11 s

151
 The VAR planning problem has been formulated as a con-
strained, multi-objective and non-differentiable optimization prob-
lem. We have developed a twestage solution algorithm based on
the extended simulated annealing technique and the e-constraint
method to solve the VAR planning problem. The first-stage of this
algorithm seeks a global non-inferior point and the second stage
applies the e-constraint method to find an acceptable non-inferior
solution according to (i) the global non-inferior point obtained from
the first-stage and (ii) a trade-off choice made by the designer. This
solution algorithm has been implementedin the SAMVAR planning
package which is written in C. The test results on the IEEE 30-
bus system and a practical (358bus) power system indicate that
SAMVAR allows planners t o find acceptable global non-inferiorso-
lutions for the VAR planning problem.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments
nhich have resulted in the improvement of several points in the
paper. The work is supported in part by NSF of USA under grant
numbers ECS-8957878 and ECS-8913074.
References
(11 A. Kishore and E.F. Hill, "Static optimization of reactive power
sources by use of sensitivity parameters", IEEE Transactions
o n PAS, Vol. PAS-90,1971, pp.1166-1173.
[2] S.S. Sachdeva and R. Billinton, "Optimum network VAR plan-
ning by nonlinear programming", IEEE Transactions o n
PAS, Vol. PAS-92, 1973, pp.1217-1225.
[3] N.P. Iiholi and J.C. Kohli, "Optimal capacitor allocation by 0-
1 programming", IEEE Summer Power Meeting, paper A75
476-2, San Francisco, California, July 20-25, 1975.
[4) R.A. Femandes, F. Lange, R.C. Burchett , H.H. Happ and K.A.
Wirgau, "Large scale reactive power planning", IEEE Trans-
actions on PAS, Vol. PAS-102, No.5, May 1983, pp. 1083-
1088.
[5] M.O. h4ansour and T.M. Abdel-"an, "Nonlinear VAR
optimization using decomposition and coordination", IEEE
Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-103, No.2, February 1984,
pp.246255.
[GI S. Rama Iyer, K.Ramachandran and S . Hariliaran, "Optimal
reactive power allocation for improved system performance",
IEEE Transactions o n PAS, Vol. PAS-103, No.6, June 1984,
pp. 1509-1515.
[7] EPRI, Optimizafion of Reactive Volt-Ampere Sources in Sys-
tem Planning, Vol. 1, Report EL3729, prepared by Scientific
Systems, Inc., Nov. 1984.
[8] W.M. Lebow, R. Rouhani, R. Nadira, P.B. Usoro, R.K. Mehra,
D.W: Sobieski, M.K. Pal and M.P. Bhavaraju, "A hierarchical
approach to VAR optimization in system planning", IEEE
Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-104, No.8, August 1985,
pp. 2015-2057.
[9] S. Granville, M.V.F. Pereira and A. hlonticelli, "An integrated
methodology for VAR sources planning ", IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vo1.3, No.2, May 1988, pp. 549-557.
I<. Aoki, M. Fan and A. Nishikori, "Optimal VAR planning
by approximation method for recursive mixed-integer linear
programming IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.
I*,
3, No.4, Nov. 1988, pp.1741-1747.
Nedal Deeb and S.M. Shahidehpour, "Linear reactive power
optimization in a large power network using the decomposi-
tion approach", IEEE/PES Summer Meeting, I'aper No. 89
SM 695-8 PWRS, 1989.
152
G. Opoku, "Optimal power system VAR planning", IEEE
Transactions o n PAS, vo1.5, No.1, February 1990, pp. 53-59.
Y.Y. I-long, David I. Sun, S.Y. Lin and C.J. Lin, "Multi-year
multi-csse optimal VAR planning", 1989 IEEE Transactions
o n Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1990, pp. 1992-
1301.
T. Gbmez, I.J. PCrez-Arriaga, J. Lumbreras and V.M. Parra,
"A security-constrained decomposition approach to optimal
reactive power planning", IEEE Transactions o n Power Sys-
tems, Vol. 6, No.3, August 1991, pp. 1069-1076.
Y.Y.Hong, C.C. Liu, "A HeurisLic and Algorithmic Approach
to VAR Planning". IEEE Transaciions o n Power Systems,
Vol. 7 , No. 2, May 1992, pp 505-512.
Y.T. Hsiao, C.C. Liu, H.D. Chiang and Y.L. Chen, "A New
Approach for Optimal VAR sources Planning", 92 SM 440-
8 P W R S , IEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA,
July 12-16, 1992.
H.D. Chiang, and R. Jean-Juneau "Optimal network recon-
figurations in distribution systems:' Part 1: A New Formula-
tion and a Solution Methodology", IEEE Trans. o n Power
Delivery, Vol. 5.No.4, November 1990, pp. 1902-1909.
H.D. Chiang, and R. Jean-Jumeau, "Optimal network recon-
figurations in distribution systems: Part 2: Solution Algo-
rithms and Numerical Results", IEEE Trans. on Power De-
livery, Vol. 5, No. 3, Noveber 1990, pp. 1568-1567.
Y.Y. Haimes, W.A. Hall and H.T. Freedman, Mulii-objective
Optimization in Water Resources Systems, New York: Else-
vier Scientific. 1975.
Ying-Tung Hsiao received his B.S. degree in electrical engi-
neering from National Taiwan Institute of Technology in 1986 and
M.S. degree in electrical engineering from National Taiwan Univer-
sity in 1989. After that, he joined the faculty of ST. John's & ST.
Mary's Institute of Technology, Taiwan. He is currently working
toward his P1i.D degree at National Taiwan University. His re-
search interests include power system analysis, optimal theory and
software engineering.
Hsiao-Dong Cliiang received his Ph.D. degree ill electrical
engineering and computer sciences from the University of Califor-
nia at Berkeley in 1966. He is currently an Associate Professor of
Electrical Engineering a t Cornell University. He w a s a recipient of
the Engineering Research Initiation Award (1988) and of the Pres-
idential Young Investigator Award (1989) both from the National
Science Foundation. In 1990 he was selected by a Cornell Merrill
Presidential Scholar as the faculty member who had the most pos-
itive influence on that student's education a t Cornell. His research
interests include power systems, nonlinear systems, optimization
theory and neural networks. He was an Associate Editor of the
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems (1990-1991).
Cliun-Ctiang Liu w a s born in Taiwan on October4 ,1925. He
received his B.S. degree in electrical engineeringfrom National Tai-
wan University, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1951. Since 1951, he has been
with National Taiwan University, where lie is professor of electrical
engineering. From 1987 to 1988, he was a visitingprofessor a t the
Kyusliu University in Japan. His current research interests include
power system analysis and electrical machine analysis.
Yuan-Lin C h e n was bom in Taiaan on June 20, 1965. Ile
received his B.S. degree in electrical engineering from National Tai-
wan Institute of Technology in 1989 and M.S. in electrical engi-
neering from National Taiwan University in 1991. He is currently
working toward his Ph.D. degree a t National Taiwan University.
His major interests are computer method power system analysis
and optimalization tlieory.