2018 National Power Engineering Conference (NPEC)
Transmission Expansion Planning Using
Differential Evolution Multi-Objective
Differential Evolution and Multi-Criteria
Decision Making Methods
M. Divya Sri
M. Tech Scholar, Dept of EEE,
SIR C R Reddy College Of Engineering,
Eluru, India
divyamoka08@gmail.com
Abstract—Nowadays, Transmission Expansion
Planning has been increasing widely in the
electricity market. Multi-objective optimization of
Transmission Expansion planning by installing
new transmission lines in the existing system at
different locations by using the DE and the
MODE. In this paper, the Multi-criteria decision
making methods like AHP and SAW for ranking
the best compromise solutions are implemented on
test system like IEEE 24-Bus system are
considered. This paper shows the feasibility and
effectiveness of the proposed DE, MODE for the
solution of the TEP problem.
Keywords—Transmission Expansion Planning,
evolutionary optimization, Locational marginal
prices, multi-criteria decision making methods
I. INTRODUCTION
The power system is mainly classified into three
parts they are the generation, the transmission, and
the distribution. The idea of the transmission system
is transfer of the electrical energy from generating
stations to the distributing systems at different
locations that ultimately supplies the load. Over the
past few years, the electrical energy that has been
transferred from generating units to major areas of
load has been growing drastically. Due to this there is
need for restructuring the transmission lines. In this
paper the study of electric power transmission
systems are done with regard to optimizing the
transmission expansion planning (TEP) problem [1].
Minimizing the investment costs and operating costs
of the transmission systems is the objective of the
TEP. The transmission system planning is to set up
new transmission lines according to the requirements
of the public and private enterprises.TEP is broadly
classified into two categories based on the planning
horizon, they are static and dynamic planning i.e.,
single stage and multi-stage planning. Static planning
978-1-5386-3803-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
M. Veera Kumari
Assoc. Professor, Dept of EEE,
SIR C R Reddy College Of Engineering,
Eluru, India
veerakumari.m@gmail.com
is about considering entire planning horizon as single
time period. In dynamic planning multi stages of
planning horizon are considered [2]. TEP purpose is
to implement the planning of network to undergo
power economically so that there is improvement in
network reliability. Minimum investment costs of
lines of the transmission network define about
meeting the economical power. In power systems the
ultimate target of TEP is to find the best scheme so
that available transmission network can be expanded
to encounter the need of possible load growth for the
desired performance of the power system. In this
paper the model of TEP that applied and modified is
presented. Investment cost and Total cost are
considered in this optimization [3]. In this paper
using the framework of different optimization
techniques a analytical model and dynamic planning
of TEP is applied.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
New objective functions are introduced for
reconstitute networks. The design that implemented
and reformed to dynamic model in this paper is
presented. Over a planning prospect TEP finds the set
of optimum decision vectors that reduces the
investment cost and total cost under relevant
reliability constraints. The objective function of this
paper is minimizing the investment cost and total cost
of all combinations of with and without addition of
new lines. Generally, TEP problem is a nonlinear,
constrained multi-objective optimization problem; we
consider minimization of investment cost and
minimization of total cost in TEP problem as the
objective functions and make the TEP problem as a
non smooth optimization problem [4].MCDM
techniques like Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
and Simple additive Weighting (SAW) is applied at
different locations of Transmission lines for the
existing systems. The proposed Differential
Evolution (DE), Multi-Objective Differential
Evolution (MODE) algorithms and also Multi-criteria
 2018 National Power Engineering Conference (NPEC)
decision making method (MCDM) techniques are
implemented on IEEE 24 bus system transmission
network and minimize the overall investment cost
and total cost.
A. Objective Function
The objective function is implemented to
curtail the total discounted line investment and total
discounted cost over throughout planning view [5].
The investment cost can be composed as:
CC=∑(i,j)ϵ ICij xij
Where CC represents investment cost, ICij represents
construction cost to build a line in the right-of-way
(i-j) ($/year), xij represents number of new line added
to the right-of-way (i-j), represents set of all new
right-of-ways
The congestion cost can be determined as follows
CoC= ∑(i,j) ϵAll corridors fij (LMPj – LMPi)
where CoC represents Congestion cost, fij is active
power flow in the right-of-way i-j, LMP is local
marginal prices at i,j
LMP’s are obtained from the following equation:
Min ∑ PGi ( aiPGi+ bi )
s.t: sijγij (δi – δj) – PGi + PDi = 0
-fl ≤ γij (δi – δj) ≤fl
PGimin≤PGi≤PGimax
The constraint (4) indicates the DC power flow
equations. The constraint (5) indicates the power
flow limits of the network. The constraint (6)
indicates generation boundary limit.
( )
× ( )
Min ∑ ∑( , )∈ ( +∑
)( ) ( )(
Where Di indicates the discount factor; the first
expression indicates the investment cost, the second
expression indicates the total cost of the system.
III. MULTI-OBJECTIVE DIFFERENTIAL
EVOLUTION
MODE algorithm solves the multi objective
functions with different individual giving optimal
solutions. A contradiction is occurred between the
objective functions when there is sufficient difference
in the optimal solutions corresponding to different
objectives [6]. To initialize the optimization process,
control parameters and other parameters are defined.
978-1-5386-3803-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
The algorithm is illustrated in following steps:
1) Initialization: By using the equation initial
population is generated and empty external Pareto
optimal set is created.
, (0) = + rand (0, 1) ( − ) (7)
Where, rand (0,1) is a random number systematically
assigned between 0 and 1 [7].
(1)
2) Fitness assignment: For different individuals
calculate fitness values. In the objective space
individuals in the current population are evaluated
and then scalar value is assigned which is known as
fitness.
3) External set updating: Pareto optimal set is
updated as follows:
(2)
a) For the non-dominated individuals search
the population and give them to the external set
called 'external Pareto set.’
b) Search the external Pareto set for the non-
dominate individuals and remove all dominated
(3) solutions from the set.
(4) c) If the externally stored individuals in the
Pareto set exceed the pre specified size of the
(5) number, decrease the set by means of clustering.
(6)
4) Perform DE mutation: According to the
following equation to generate the donor vector w (t)
for each ith-member (t) DE mutation operation is
performed
, (t+1) = , (t) + F( , (t) - , ( )) (8)
(7) 5) Perform DE crossover: Perform the DE
)
crossover according to equation given below and find
the trail vector
, ( ) (0,1) <
, (t) = (9)
, ( ),
6) Selection: Selection operation is made
between trail vector (child) and target vector (parent)
based on the dominance criteria as follows:
a) For solution ui if all the objectives are better
or equal to that of the corresponding objectives of Yi
then Yi is dominated by ui and replaces it in the new
population and vice-versa [8].
b) If all objective are equal or some are better
and some are worse of solution Yi then vi and Yi are
dominated by each other and vi continues in the new
population.
 2018 National Power Engineering Conference (NPEC)

7) Stopping criteria: Pareto-optimal set of C. Analysis of AHP and SAW

solutions are upgraded until the optimal value of cost In the AHP method the priority is given to total
is achieved. cost among all the attributes i.e., Investment cost,
Total cost, EENS (Energy not served Factor) and
LOLP (Loss of Load Probability) . In SAW method,
the priority is given to investment cost among all the
IV. MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING attributes Investment cost, total cost, EENS and
METHODS LOLP. Best rank is given to the optimal investment
cost, which is the second solution.
A. Analytic Hierarchy Process
A complex MCDM can be divided into system
hierarchies by using Analytic Hierarchy Process
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
(AHP). Evaluations are converted into numerical
values by using AHP and this conversion can be
processed and compared throughout the problem . By The TEP is executed using DE, MODE
utilizing the respective significance of the algorithms along with MCDM techniques i.e., AHP
alternatives in terms of each criterion the matrix is and SAW which has been implemented in MATLAB
constructed. On priority theory Analytic Hierarchy 14b, 64 bit, 2GB RAM with windows 7 operating
Process (AHP) is based which is an MCDM method system. For the TEP problem IEEE 24-Bus standard
[9]. By consideration of multiple criteria/alternatives electrical test system is considered. Investment cost
simultaneously it deals with complex problems. To and total cost are the two objective functions that are
provide a scale for calculating intangibles and the examined in case studies.
procedure of creating priorities it has the ability to
IEEE 24-Bus system consists of 24 buses. 34
incorporate data and judgement of experts into the
existing branches, maximum demand is 8590MW
model in a logical way, analyses with correlation of
and maximum 5 lines are added at different locations.
elements in a system which allows revision of
The minimum generation Pgmin of each generator is
judgements in a short time to monitor the consistency
considered as zero and Pgmax of each generator as
in the decision-makers judgements to accommodate
specified for each candidate line. The complete data
group judgements if the groups cannot reach a natural
of the system is available in [5] and also shown in
consensus. By converting the evaluations into
Fig.1. To obtain optimal values of all objective
numerical values which are processed and compared.
functions the parameters for DE algorithm are taken
as scaling factor F=0.5; Crossover constant
CR=0.6;size of the population NP=20; discount
B. Simple Additive Weighting factor Di=0.015; and parameters for MODE
Among the MCDM techniques Simple Additive algorithm are taken as crossover constant CR=0.6;
Weighting (SAW) is one of the technique is scaling factor F=0.5; discount factor Di=0.085;
considered in this paper which consists of sum of population=200.
values which are assigning to each alternative, for
corresponding evaluation criterion each one is
associated and according to relative importance of
corresponding criterion weighted is done. SAW can
also be entitled as a weighted linear combination or
scoring method which is simple and most often
method used multi-attribute decision technique. SAW
depends on the weighted average using arithmetic
mean [10]. The virtue of this method itself it is a
proportional linear transformation of raw data which
means that the relative order of magnitude of the
standardized scores remains equal. This method is
more efficient because it requires less time, simple to
calculate and easier to examine in situations having
greater sensitivity constituents and optimizes decision
problems effectively. The ultimate target of SAW
method is to yield weighted sum of performance
ratings of each substitute over all attributes.
Fig.1. IEEE 24-bus system

978-1-5386-3803-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 2018 National Power Engineering Conference (NPEC)

A. DE Results
Table 1 shows the Investment cost (CC) and total
cost (TC) with adding 3 lines in the existing lines of
IEEE 24-Bus system. The following Fig2 and Fig3
represent the convergence characteristics of two
objective functions along with their fitness function
TABLE1. INVESTMENT COST AND TOTAL COST WITH
ADDITION OF LINES
B. MODE Results
TEP using MODE with various parameters, system
parameters and constraints EENS and LOLP are
considered. Table 2 shows the evaluation of
Investment cost (CC), Total cost (TC) and best
compromise solution using MODE. The results are
summarized in Table 2 for optimal minimum and
maximum values of investment cost, total cost and
also the best compromise solution at different
locations of the system.

New added lines CC ($) TC ($)

10-12 2.41e+5 8.57e+8 TABLE 2.EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES USING MODE
6-10 2.57e+5 8.93e+8
16-17 2.75e+5 9.42e+8 Objectives MODE Best
Min Max compromise
solution
CC ($) 1.51e+6 1.98e+6 1.93e+5

TC ($) 6.99e+8 1.08e+9 7.29e+8

Fig.2. Convergence characteristics of objective 1 using DE

Fig.4.Convergence characteristics of Investment cost versus Total

cost using MODE

C. AHP and SAW Results

The optimal attributes considered are Investment

cost, Total cost, EENS and LOLP at different
locations are considered for AHP and SAW given in
Table 3. Priority is given to Investment cost in AHP
and SAW techniques.
Fig.3. Convergence characteristics of objective 2 using DE

978-1-5386-3803-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 2018 National Power Engineering Conference (NPEC)

TABLE 3. RANKING OF INVESTMENT COST AND TOTAL [5] Abdollah Rastghou, Jamal Moshtagh
COST USING AHP AND SAW
“Application of firefly algorithm for multi-stage
transmission expansion planning with adequacy
system constraints in deregulated environments”
CC ($) TC ($) EENS LOLP Rank Rank
AHP SAW
applied soft computing 41(2016)© Elsevier

2.37e+5 8.52e+8 0.1048 0.1007 1 2 [6] M.A.Abido, N.A. Al-Ali “Multi-objective

2.39e+5 8.93e+8 0.0873 0.1092 3 1 Differential Evolution for optimal Power flow”
March 18-20©2009 IEEE
2.44e+5 8.84e+8 0.1041 0.1032 2 3
2.54e+5 8.75e+8 0.0958 0.1136 5 4 [7] Wenyin Gong, Zhihua Cai “A multi objective
2.64e+5 8.91e+8 0.1048 0.1007 4 5 differential evolution algorithm of constrained
optimization”© 2008 IEEE

VI. CONCLUSION [8] Feng Xue, Arthur C. Sanderson, Robert J. Graves

“Pareto-based Differential Evolution” ©2003 IEEE
The proposed MODE algorithm solved the optimal
transmission expansion planning with the two [9] S.A. Torabi and M. Madadi Da-Yong Chang
objective functions along with reliability constraints. “Applications of the extent analysis method on AHP”
The objective functions considered is minimization European Journal of Operational Research 95 (1996)
of investment cost and total cost for planning horizon
of two years corresponding to EENS and LOLP as [10] Hepu Deng “Multi-criteria analysis with fuzzy
constraints. The standard test system considered is pair wise comparison” International Journal of
IEEE 24-Bus system. In MODE algorithm one Approximate Reasoning 21(1999)
objective is minimized and other is maximized. The
best compromise solution of best combination of
transmission lines at different locations is evaluated
by AHP and SAW, multi-criteria decision making
methods. Also ranking analysis by using AHP and
SAW were presented.

REFERENCES

[1] Hong Fan, Hao-zhong cheng, Liang Gao, Jie-tan

Zhang “Study on transmission expansion planning
considering uncertainties” © 2011 IEEE

[2] G.A. Orfanos, P.S. Georgilakis, N.D.

Hatziargyriou “Transmission expansion planning by
enhanced Differential Evolution” 2007-2-TREN-
218903 (IRENE 40-Project)

[3] Zongyu Liu, Georgios Papaefthymiou, Lou van

der Sluis “Collaborative Transmission network
planning for congestion alleviation using Lagrange
multipliers”© 2012 IEEE

[4] Russell Bent, G. Loren Toole, Alan Berscheid

“Transmission network expansion planning with
complex power flow models” IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS,
VOL.27. NO.2, MAY 2012

978-1-5386-3803-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE