www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 19th September 2011
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851

ISSN 1751-8687

Improved particle swarm optimisation for

multi-objective optimal power flow considering
the cost, loss, emission and voltage stability index
T. Niknam M.R. Narimani J. Aghaei R. Azizipanah-Abarghooee
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz 71555-313, Iran
E-mail: niknam@sutech.ac.ir; taher_nik@yahoo.com

Abstract: The study presents an improved particle swarm optimisation (IPSO) method for the multi-objective optimal power flow
(OPF) problem. The proposed multi-objective OPF considers the cost, loss, voltage stability and emission impacts as the objective
functions. A fuzzy decision-based mechanism is used to select the best compromise solution of Pareto set obtained by the
proposed algorithm. Furthermore, to improve the quality of the solution, particularly to avoid being trapped in local optima,
this study presents an IPSO that profits from chaos queues and self-adaptive concepts to adjust the particle swarm
optimisation (PSO) parameters. Also, a new mutation is applied to increase the search ability of the proposed algorithm. The
30-bus IEEE test system is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed problem. The obtained results are compared
with those in the literatures and the superiority of the proposed approach over other methods is demonstrated.

1 Introduction mutation increases the diversity of the generated population

Optimal power flow (OPF) is a static non-linear programming
problem which optimises a certain objective function while
satisfying a set of physical and operational constraints
imposed by equipment and network limitations [1, 2]. It
is also a large-scale static optimisation problem with both
continuous and discrete control variables [3]. Many
mathematical techniques such as quadratic programming
[4], linear programming [5], non-linear programming [6]
and the interior point method [7] have been applied to solve
the OPF problem. All the above mathematical techniques
have some drawbacks such as being trapped in local optima
or they are suitable for considering a specific objective
function in the OPF problem [8]. These shortcomings can
be overcome if evolutionary methods are utilised to solve
the OPF problem. Particle swarm optimisation (PSO) is one
of the known optimisation algorithms that has been used to
solve complicated problems [9 – 12]. Also, it is a strong and
accurate algorithm that can find high-quality solutions for
complicated problems such as the OPF. However, the
traditional PSO is often trapped in local optima and
converges to the optimal value in a long time. In order to
avoid these problems and increase the efficiency of the PSO
algorithm, this study uses a chaos concept to tune the
inertia weight (v) and a self-adaptive approach for adjusting
the learning factors (C1 and C2) of the PSO algorithm.
These parameters (v, C1 and C2) play an important role in
the PSO convergence property. In other words, the
performance of the PSO algorithm greatly depends on these
parameters. Also for increasing the search ability, a new
mutation is applied in the proposed algorithm. The used
and causes to escape from local optima during the
optimisation process.
The thermal power houses release sulphur oxides (SOx),
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxides into the
atmosphere. The passage of the US Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990 forces the utilities to modify their
operation strategies for generating electrical power not only
at a minimum generation cost but also with minimum
pollution level [13]. There are a lot of solutions proposed in
the literature for reducing the emission. The short-term and
applicable solution for the emission problem is an
environmental dispatch that needs no additional equipments,
therefore this method is applied for emission reduction.
Since electrical business enters a deregulated environment,
power companies try their best to operate with economic
efficiency. Loss reduction is an effective method to
decrease the generation cost, also active power transmission
loss is considered as an objective function. By decreasing
the loss in power systems, the total generation and
consequently generation cost are reduced which increase
social welfare. The stability of power systems is an
important task that the power system operator should keep
at an acceptable level. One of the important branches
related to the stability in power systems is voltage stability.
So, during previous years a great number of approaches
have been considered for satisfying the voltage stability.
Therefore beside economic and environmental issues in this
study, the voltage stability is considered as an objective
function, in this regard the Voltage Stability Index (VSI) is
optimised to increase the secure operation of the power
system.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527 515
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
There are several techniques that have been considered in is the total number of generation units, Ntran is the number
the literature to solve multi-objective problems. One of of tap transformer and Ncap is the number of the
these methods is reducing the multi-objective problem into compensation capacitor.
a single objective problem by considering one objective
as a target and others as a constraint. Another strategy 2.2 Emission objective
is combining all objective functions into one objective
function. The above strategies have some weak points such The emission function can be presented as the sum of all types
as the limitation of the available choices and their priori of emissions considered, such as NOx , SOx , thermal emission,
selection need of weights for each objective function. etc. In the present study, two important types of emission
Besides the above drawbacks, finding just one solution for gases are taken into account. The amount of NOx and SOx
the multi-objective problem is known as the most important emission is given as a function of generator output that is
weak point of these strategies. Over the past few years, the the sum of a quadratic and exponential function as follows
studies on evolutionary algorithms have revealed that these
methods can be efficiently used for solving the multi- 
Ngen
objective optimisation problem, some of these algorithms F2 (X ) = 2
(gi Pgi + bi Pgi + ai + ji exp (li Pgi )) ton/h
are multi-objective evolutionary algorithm [14], strength i=1
Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA) [15], non-dominating
sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) [16] and multi-objective (8)
PSO algorithm [17]. Since these algorithms are population-
based techniques, multiple Pareto-optimal solutions can be where F2(X ) is the total emission (ton/h), gi , bi , ai , zi and li
found in one program run. are the emission coefficients of the ith unit.
Since the objectives are in conflict with each other in multi-
objectives problems, it is usual to obtain a set of solutions 2.3 Transmission loss
instead of one. In this study, the proposed improved PSO
(IPSO) algorithm is implemented in order to extract the The power flow solution gives all bus voltage magnitudes and
non-dominated solutions. In this regard, this study utilises angles. Then, the active power loss in transmission line can be
an external repository to save all non-dominated solutions computed as follows
during the evolutionary process, and a fuzzy decision-
making method is applied to sort these solutions according 
Nline

to their importance. Power system decision makers can
select the desired solution between them by applying
the fuzzy decision-making method to the Pareto-optimal
solution. Finally, to authenticate the obtained Pareto-optimal
solutions, three criterions involving generational distance
(GD) [18], spacing (SP) [18] and diversity metric [19] are
used. The 30-bus IEEE test system is presented to illustrate
the efficiency of the proposed method.
F3 (X) = gk [Vi2 − Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos(ui − uj )] MW (9)
k=1
where F3(X ) is the total transmission loss (MW), Nline is the
number of transmission lines, di and dj are the bus voltage
angles at the two ends of the kth line, Vi and Vj are bus
voltage amplitudes at the two ends of the kth line and gk is
the conductance of the kth line.

2 Problem formulation and constraints 2.4 Voltage stability enhancement index

2.1 Generation cost objective The static voltage stability margin can be measured by the
minimal L index which is described as follows [20]
The generation cost function can be mathematically stated as  
follows  
Ngen 
 V 
Lj = 1 − Fji i  j = Ngen + 1, . . . , n (10)
 Vj 

Ngen i=1
F1 (X ) = (ai P 2gi + bi P gi + ci ) $/h (1)
i=1 Matrix (F ) is computed by
X = [P g , V g , TAP, Qc]1×n (2)
[F] = −[Y LL ]−1 [Y LG ] (11)
P g = [P g1 , P g2 , . . . , P g(Ngen −1) ]1×(Ngen −1) (3)
where [YLL] and [YLG] are submatrices of the Y bus matrix.
V g = [V g1 , V g2 , . . . , V g Ngen ]1×Ngen (4) The network equations in terms of the node admittance
matrix can be simply written as
TAP = [TAP1 , TAP2 , . . . , TAPNtran ]1×Ntran (5)
I bus = Y bus V bus (12)
Qc = [Qc1 , Qc2 , . . . , QcNcap ]1×Ncap (6)
For computing the VSI value, it is necessary to cluster all
n = (Ntran + Ncap + Ngen + (Ngen − 1)) (7) nodes into two categories that involve load buses (aL) and
generator buses (aG) as follows
where F1(X ) is the total fuel cost ($/h), ai , bi , ci are fuel     
cost coefficients of the ith unit, Pgi is the real power IL Y LL Y LG VL
= (13)
generation of the ith unit, Vgi is the voltage magnitude of IG Y GL Y GG Vg
the ith generator, TAPi is the tap of the ith transformer, Qci
is the reactive power of the ith compensator capacitor, Ngen I L = Y LL × V L + Y LG × V g (14)

516 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
 www.ietdl.org
The above equation can be written after adding the diagonal constraints are expressed in the following equations [20]
elements of IL matrix into the YLL matrix as follows

nbus
Y ′ LL × V L + Y LG × V G = 0 (15) Pi = Pgi − Pdi = Vi Vj (Gij cos uij + Bij sin uij ) (19)
j=1
From (15), it is clear that all load bus voltages can be
calculated by using the generator bus voltages. According
to the superposition principle, the voltage VLk in a load 
nbus
bus k can be calculated by Qi = Qgi − Qdi = Vi Vj (Gij sin uij − Bij cos uij ) (20)
j=1


Ngen
VLk = ((Y LL )−1 Y LG )k,i × Vgk (16) where i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , nbus and uij ¼ ui 2 uj that ui and uj are the
i=1
voltage angle of two ending buses of an arbitrary branch and

Ngen nbus is expressed as the number of the buses. It is worthwhile
Lj = ((Y ′ LL )−1 Y LG )k,i (17) to note that all generator outputs except slack generator are
i=1 generated randomly in their limits. Furthermore output of
slack generator puts in its limit according to Fig. 1. The
The L indices for the given load condition are computed for mechanism of handling the equality constraint related to the
all load buses and the maximum of L indices shows that the equality of generation level with load level plus loss is
system tends towards the voltage collapse. For stable shown in Fig. 1. It is noticeable that whenever each output
situations, the condition 0 ≤ Lj ≤ 1 must not be violated for of generator is set to its maximum or minimum level the
any of the nodes j. Hence, a global indicator L that related velocity of the control vector for the next iteration is
describes the stability of the whole system is given by declined. In this regard, a negative value is added to the
current velocity in order to change the direction of
F4 (X ) = L = max (Lj ) j [ aL (18) aforementioned element that is output power of the generator.

2.5 Constraints
2.5.2 Inequality constraints: The inequality constraints
2.5.1 Equality constraints: The OPF equality constraints of the OPF reflect the limits on physical devices in the
reflect the physics of the power systems. Equality power system as well as the limits created to ensure system

Fig. 1 Diagram of satisfying equality constraint

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527 517
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
security. They are presented in the following inequalities
Pgi min ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgi max i = 1, 2, . . . , Ngen
Qgi min ≤ Qgi ≤ Qgi max i = 1, 2, . . . , Ngen
|Pij | ≤ Pij max
Vi min ≤ Vi ≤ Vi max i = 1, 2, . . . , NL
Qci min ≤ Qci ≤ Qci max i = 1, 2, . . . , Ncap
Ti min ≤ Ti ≤ Ti max i = 1, 2, . . . , Ntran
where NL is the number of load bus and Pij is the power that
flows between bus i and bus j. Vimax and Vimin voltages are,
respectively, the maximum and minimum valid voltages for
each bus. Pijmax is the maximum power flow through the
branch. Pgimax and Pgimin are the maximum and minimum
active power values of the ith bus, respectively. Qgimax and
Qgimin are the maximum and minimum reactive power
values of the ith bus.
In this study, the penalty factor method is utilised for
handling the inequality constraints. In this regard, each
control vector which violates constraints will be fined by
these penalty factors therefore in the next step this control
vector will be deleted automatically.
3 Fuzzy adaptive particle swarm
optimisation
3.1 Overview of the PSO
PSO is an evolutionary optimisation method modelled by the
social behaviour of birds flocking or fish schooling. This
algorithm consists of a population continuously updating
the searching space knowledge. This population is formed
by individuals, where each one represents a possible
solution and can be modelled as a particle that moves
through hyperspace. The position and velocity of each
particle are updated as follows [21]
Velocityik+1 = vk × Velocityki + C1 × rand()1
× (pki − Xik ) + C2 × rand()2 × (gbest
k
− Xik )
Xik+1 = Xik + Velocityik+1
where Velocityki is the velocity of the ith particle at the
kth iteration, Velocityik+1 is the velocity of the ith particle
at (k + 1)th iteration, vk is an inertia weight in the kth
iteration and rand()1 and rand()2 are random numbers
selected between 0 and 1. C1 and C2 are positive
coefficients between 0 and 2 that is C1 + C2 ≤ 4. Original
PSO often suffers from the problem of being trapped
in local optima so as to prematurely converge. The
performance of the original PSO greatly depends on C1 , C2
and vk. In order to avoid this disadvantage, this study
proposes a chaos algorithm to compute the inertia weight
(v) and a self-adaptive method to compute learning factors
(C1 and C2).
518
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
3.2 Self-adaptive method for computing the
learning factors
(21)
The learning factors C1 and C2 determine the influence of the
personal best pki and the global best gbestk
, respectively. They
(22) have a significant effect on the PSO convergence. When the
global fitness is large, the particles are far away from the
(23) optimum point. Therefore a large velocity is needed for global
search in the search space of the problem and so C1 and C2
must be larger values. Also, for the local search, a small
(24) movement is needed, therefore C1 and C2 must set to small
values. According to above statement, learning factors in the
(25) proposed method are adjusted as a function of the global
optimum fitness. Therefore a self-adaptive method is developed
(26) to adjust the learning factors, which is expressed as follows
1
Cj = 1 + j = 1, 2 (29)
(1 + exp(−a × F(gbest
k
))k )
k
where F(gbest ) is the fitness of the global optimum solution. The
value of a can be selected as the inverse of the best compromise
objective value in the first iteration which is shown as follows
[11]
a = 1/(F(gbest
1
)) (30)
k
By this manner, C1 and C2 change according to the gbest rate.
k
Since the proposed problem is a multi-objective problem, gbest
cannot be selected according to the fitness of the objective
k
function. The proposed method for computing the gbest is
explained in Section 5.
3.3 Chaotic formula for inertia weight
The inertia weight factor is used to control the impact of the
previous experience of velocities on the current velocity. A
large value of v leads to a global search whereas a small
value of v tends to facilitate local search. This factor
usually decreases linearly from 0.9 down to 0.4 [22].
Despite many major advantages of the PSO such as its
simple concept, easy implementation, minimal storage
requirement and straightforward incorporation with other
optimisation methods, it may experience inappropriate
convergence and fall into the local optima. Therefore a
proper tuning of the PSO parameters is very important for
finding the global optimum solution.
In this study, the inertia weight factor is tuned dynamically
in each iteration as follows
(27)
cvk = vk Dk (31)
(28)
where cvk is the chaotic inertia weight factor at iteration k, vk
is the inertia weight factor which is decreased linearly from
0.9 down to 0.4 and D k is the chaotic parameter at iteration
k. The value of D k is determined by an iterator chaotic
system, namely the logistic map [23]
Dk = mDk−1 (1 − Dk−1 ) (32)
where m displays a control parameters which is selected
between [0, 4]. The variation of m is greatly influenced on
D k that is able to evaluate the D k in a constant size, oscillates
between a limited sequence of size or oscillates randomly.
Equation (32) is without any stochastic pattern in the value
of m and indicating chaotic dynamic when m ¼ 4 and
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
 www.ietdl.org
D 0  {0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1} [22]. The searching capability |f (X ir1 )| |f (X ir2 )| |f (X ir3 )|
and efficiency of the proposed algorithm increase greatly h1 = , h2 = , h3 = (37)
h∗ h∗ h∗
with the chaotic v as illustrated in the numerical result.
Fig. 2 shows the chaotic sequence, the conventional weight where h∗ = |F(X ir1 ) + F(X ir2 ) + F(X ir3 )| and F(X ) is the
factor and presented chaotic weight factor. From this figure it function to be optimised, K1 to K3 are the coefficients
is clear that the change in the proposed weight factor is erratic. between 0 and 1.
The aforementioned characteristic of the proposed weight After generating the mutant vectors, we should check the
factor leads to improvement of global search ability and limits for all elements in each mutant vector to ensure that
prevent from trapping in local optima. there are not any breaks the limits, if any element of each
vector break its constraint (xmax or xmin), it should be
3.4 Mutation replaced by its own limit, which are the elements of upper
and lower boundaries (Xmin , Xmax) of control vectors.
To avoid being trapped in local optima, a new mutation is Furthermore the inequality and equality constraints are
proposed in this study. For building the mutant vectors in checked for these new vectors in the way mentioned before.
each iterate, firstly four vectors Xr1 , Xr2 , Xr3 and Xr4 are After all mutant vectors are compared with the X gbest , if
selected randomly among the population. It is worthwhile to each mutant vector dominates the X gbest , then X gbest is
note that for increasing the mutation effect each mutant replaced by the mutant vector.
vector is generated by different mutant rules according
to (33) – (37) [24]. This feature causes searching of the entire
4 Multi-objective strategy
search space in different directions to be improved.
Therefore the probability of being trapped in the local 4.1 Fuzzy model for the multi-objective problem
optima decreased drastically and consequently the ability of
finding the global optima increased intensely. Equations (33) A fuzzy system can handle the multi-objective problems with
and (34) pave the way for the proposed optimisation problem objective functions in contradiction. In this study, a fuzzy
to have an appropriate search in different directions around optimisation approach is used to normalise the objectives of
the gbest . Also (35) and (36) generate two random vectors in the multi-objective problem. The objective functions are
order to increase the diversity of population in the condition modelled by membership functions to achieve the optimal
that the algorithm loses its diversity in its population. point. The higher the values of the membership function
Therefore this procedure compensates the progressing of the are, the greater the solution satisfaction is. The membership
algorithm in local optima direction or weak it at least. function includes lower and upper boundary values together
with a strictly monotonically decreasing and continuous
X imutant 1 = X ir1 + K1 × (X igbest − X ir2 ) + K1 × (X ir3 − X ir4 ) function.
Fmin
i and Fmax
i are lower and upper bounds of ith objective
(33) function. The membership function is calculated under given
constraints for each objective function, Fi(X ). The ith
X imutant 2 = X igbest + K2 × (X ir1 − X ir2 ) (34) membership function is defined as follows
⎧
X imutant 3 = X ir1 + K3 × (X ir2 − X ir3 ) + K3 × (X ir1 − X ir4 ) ⎪
⎪ 1 if Fi (X ) ≤ Fimin
⎪ max
⎨
(35) Fi − Fi (X )
mi (X) = if Fimin , Fi (X ) , Fimax (38)
⎪
⎪ F max
− F min
⎪
⎩ i i
X imutant 4 = (X ir1 + X ir2 + X ir3 )/3 + (h 2 − h1 )(X ir1 − X ir2 ) 0 if Fi (X ) ≥ Fimax
+ (h3 − h2 )(X ir2 − X ir3 ) + (h1 − h3 )(X ir3 − X ir1 )
Fmin max
i , Fi are extracted from optimisation of each objective
(36) separately.

Fig. 2 Comparison of conventional weight factor and proposed chaotic weight factor

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527 519
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
For fuzzy multiple objectives, the fuzzy solution can be Step 1: The input data involving the generator real powers,
calculated as generator bus voltages, fuel cost coefficients of generators,
emission coefficients of generators, the tap position of the
F(X ) = min [m1 (X), m2 (X ), m3 (X ), m4 (X )] (39) transformer, the reactive power of switchable VAR, Fimin
and Fimax are defined.
Step 2: Transfer the constraint multi-objective problem to an
The maximum value of F(X ) is considered as the optimal
unconstraint one as follows (see (42))
solution.
where Neq and Nueq are the number of equality and inequality
constraints, respectively. hj (X ) and sj (X ) are the equality and
4.2 Pareto-optimal solution
inequality constraints, respectively, and Z1 and Z2 are the
Since the target of the proposed approach is to obtain a set of penalty factors.
solutions for the multi-objective OPF problem it is necessary Step 3: Produce the initial population. An initial population
to apply a method which can obtain a set of optimal solutions. based on state variables is produced randomly as follows
The Pareto-optimal method is a suitable approach for the
⎡ ⎤
multi-objective problem which can obtain a set of solutions X1
instead of one. This method works based on the dominance ⎢ X2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
concept, the vector X1 dominates X2 , when the following Population = ⎢ .. ⎥ (43)
conditions are satisfied [2] ⎣ . ⎦
X Nswarm
∀ i = {1, 2, . . . , M }, Fi (X 1 ) ≤ Fi (X 2 )
(40) X i = [xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , xi,n ] (44)
∃ j [ {1, 2, . . . , M }, Fj (X 1 ) , Fj (X 2 )

4.3 Fuzzy decision maker xi,;j = rand(.) ∗ (xj, max − xj, min ) + xj, min , j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n;

In the proposed approach, a repository is defined to save i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , Nswarm (45)

non-dominated solutions in each iteration. The solutions
that are saved in this repository in all iterations are sorted
by a type of decision-making function. Therefore it is
possible to select the best solution by selecting the top
solutions in this collection. A decision-making function that
is utilised in this study is defined as follows [25]
Nobj all the different objectives are computed.
b × mk (j)
n k
Nmj =
m k=1 (41) Step 5: Apply the Pareto method and save non-dominated
j=1 k=1 bk × mk (j)
where bk is the weight factor for the kth objective functions,
Nobj is the number of the objective function and m is the
number of non-dominated solutions. The weight values bk
can be selected by the operator based on the importance of
the objective function. The solution with the maximum
membership function Nm is the most preferred compromise
solution based on the adopted weight factors.
5 Application of the IPSO to the
multi-objective OPF
To apply the IPSO algorithm to solve the proposed problem,
the following steps should be taken and repeated.
where xj is the position of the jth state variable, n and Nswarm
are the number of control variables and the number of initial
population, respectively.
Step 4: Calculate the objective functions value and normalise
them by the fuzzy decision-making which is proposed in
(41). Also for each individual (Xi) the membership values of
solutions in the repository.
Step 6: Select (pki ) and gbest
k
in each iterate, as follows:
In the first iteration, the initial population is considered as
pki but in the second to final iteration, if the pk+1 i could
dominate the pki then, the pki is replaced by pk+1 i and if
could not dominate pki then pki is remained as the best
solution in next iteration. If none of them dominates each
other, then pki is updated by max – min method in the next
iteration which is described as follows:
After computing all objective functions and normalising
them by (38) in each iterate, by calculating the following
equation for all objectives, mDi is computed for each
individual as follows
mDi = max(min(m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 )) (46)

⎡ N  N ⎤
 eq  ueq

⎢ F1 (X ) + Z1 (hj (X)) + Z2
2
(Max[0, −sj (X )]) ⎥
2
⎢ ⎥
⎢ j=1 j=1 ⎥
⎢ N  N ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢  eq  ueq ⎥
⎢ ⎥
J1 (X ) ⎢ F2 (X ) + Z1 (hj (X)) + Z2
2
(Max[0, −sj (X )])2 ⎥
⎢ J2 (X ) ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
J (X ) = ⎢ ⎥ j=1 j=1
⎣ J3 (X ) ⎦ = ⎢
⎢
N
 eq
 N
 ueq
⎥
⎥
(42)
⎢ ⎥
J4 (X ) 4×1 ⎢ F3 (X ) + Z1 (hj (X)) + Z2
2
(Max[0, −sj (X )])2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ j=1 j=1 ⎥
⎢ N  N ⎥
⎢  eq  ueq ⎥
⎣ ⎦
F4 (X ) + Z1 (hj (X)) + Z2
2
(Max[0, −sj (X )])2
j=1 j=1

520 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
 www.ietdl.org
pik+1 = max(mD (Xik+1 ), mD (Xmut
k
), mD (pki )) (47) 6 Simulation and numerical results

The aim of the proposed approach is to find the well-
distributed Pareto front that covers all Pareto trade-off front,
in this regard a new method that considers all objective
values in obtaining Pareto fronts is presented as follows.
In the first iterations of the algorithm, all weight factors
related to each objective are equal (e.g. in two-dimensional
Pareto front both of them are equal to 0.5), after specific
iteration numbers (usually three-tenth of the maximum
iteration) one objective function is selected randomly and
its weight factors are considered as one for specific iteration
numbers (usually one-tenth of the rest of the iteration). This
process is repeated until the number of the iteration reaches
its maximum value. The above approach causes each
objective function to obtain an opportunity to conduct the
Pareto front trajectory towards its minimum value point.
Step 7: Update the velocity, the position and the IPSO
parameters (C1 , C2 and v). The position and the velocity of
each individual are modified by (28) and (27), respectively.
Step 8: If any element of each individual breaks its limit then
the position of the individual is fixed to its maximum/
minimum operating point.
Step 9: Compute the objective functions for the new
generated individuals and normalised them.
Step 10: Apply the Pareto method and add the non-dominated
solutions to the repository.
Step 11: Determine the non-dominated solutions between the
repository members using the Pareto method. In each
iteration, some non-dominated solutions are added to the
repository and they might dominate solutions which had
existed in the repository. Therefore it is necessary to
apply the Pareto method again to determine the real
non-dominated solutions.
Step 12: If the current iteration number obtains the
preordained maximum iteration number, the algorithm is
stopped, otherwise go to step 6.
To validate the performance of the proposed method, this
method is tested on the IEEE 30-bus test system. The
detailed data of the test system are given in [26]. The 30-bus
IEEE test system has 41 transmission lines, six generators
and four transformers (T6 – 9 , T6 – 10 , T4 – 12 and T27 – 28). The
lower and upper voltage magnitudes and transformer tap
limits are considered between 0.9 and 1.1 pu, the emission
and generation cost coefficients are given in Table 1. The
parameters required for implementation of the proposed
IPSO algorithm are adjusted by 100 times running of
this algorithm. These parameters involve maximum iteration
and number of population which are set on 200 and 100,
respectively. The importance of this act is having
compromise between accuracy and run time which is a
necessity feature of the evolutionary algorithms.
For the purpose of comparison, the simulations are carried
out for two different cases categorised as cases I and II. Also,
the obtained results are compared with those reported by other
approaches. The rest of this study is divided into two
categories, as follows:
Case I: All objective functions are optimised individually.
Case II: Objectives are optimised simultaneously.
Case I: Initially, each objective function is considered
individually in order to explore the extreme points of the
trade-off curve and assess Fimin and Fimax (which are the
best and worst result of the ith objective function while it is
optimised as a single objective), these values are needed
to normalise objective functions in multi-objective
optimisation process. The obtained results from IPSO are
compared with evolutionary programming (EP) [27], tabu
search (TS) [28], improved evolutionary programming (IEP)
[29], modified differential evolution optimal power flow
(MDE-OPF) [30], stochastic genetic algorithm (SGA) [31],

Table 1 Cost and emission coefficients for 30-bus IEEE test system

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6

Fuel cost coefficient

a 100 120 40 60 40 100
b 200 150 180 100 180 150
c 10 10 30 10 20 10
Emission coefficient
g 0.06490 0.05638 0.04586 0.03380 0.04586 0.05151
b 20.05554 20.06047 20.05094 20.03550 20.05094 20.05555
a 0.04091 0.02543 0.04258 0.05326 0.04258 0.06131
j 0.0002 0.0005 0.000001 0.002 0.000001 0.00001
l 2.857 3.333 8.000 2.000 8.000 6.667

Table 2 Best generation cost for different algorithms

EP [27] TS [28] IEP [29] MDE-OPF [30] SGA [31] EGA [32] ACO [33] FGA [34] PSO IPSO

Pg1 , MW 173.848 176.04 176.2358 176.009 175.974 176.2 181.945 175.137 178.4646 177.0431
Pg2 , MW 49.998 48.76 49.0093 48.801 48.884 48.75 47.001 50.353 46.274 49.209
Pg3, MW 21.386 21.56 21.5023 21.334 21.51 21.44 20.553 21.451 21.4596 21.5135
Pg4 , MW 22.63 22.05 21.8115 22.262 22.24 21.95 21.146 21.176 21.446 22.648
Pg5 , MW 12.928 12.44 12.3387 12.46 12.251 12.42 10.433 12.667 13.207 10.4146
Pg6 , MW 12 12 12.0129 12 12 12.02 12.173 12.11 12.0134 12
cost, $/h 802.62 802.29 802.465 802.376 803.699 802.06 802.578 802 802.205 801.978

The bold numbers show that the proposed IPSO algorithm resulted in obtaining better global solutions with respect to the other
approaches in the area for single-objectives cost, transmission loss, VSI and emission

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527 521
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
Table 3 Best transmission loss for different algorithms Table 4 Best VSI for different algorithms

Initial [35] SPEA [35] GA [35] PSO IPSO Initial [36] EGA-DQLF [36] PSO [37] FAPSO [37] IPSO

Vg (1) – – – 1.045 1.047 Vg (1) 1 1.0618 – – 1.05

Vg (2) 1.045 1.044 1.03 1.043 1.044 Vg (2) 1 1.053 – – 1.047
Vg (5) 1.01 1.023 1.00 0.998 0.976 Vg (5) 1 1.053 – – 1.049
Vg (8) 1.01 1.022 1.00 1.009 1.035 Vg (8) 1 1.014 – – 1.021
Vg (11) 1.05 1.042 1.02 1.014 0.984 Vg (11) 1 1.025 – – 1.023
Vg (13) 1.05 1.043 1.04 1.047 1.042 Vg (13) 1 1.046 – – 1.043
T6 – 9 , pu 0.97 1.09 1.00 1.012 1.029 T6 – 9 , pu 1 0.9125 – – 0.92
T6 – 10 , pu 0.96 0.90 1.01 0.971 0.98 T6 – 10 , pu 1 0.9 – – 0.91
T4 – 12 , pu 0.93 1.02 1.00 1.023 1.01 T4 – 12 , pu 1 0.9 – – 0.95
T27 – 28 , pu 0.96 0.96 1.04 1.014 0.97 T27 – 28 , pu 1 0.925 – – 0.91
power loss, MW 5.4356 5.1995 5.3513 5.2105 5.0732 VSI 0.23 0.10402 0.1307 0.1238 0.1037

Table 5 Best emission for different algorithms

enhanced genetic algorithm (EGA) [32], ant colony Pg1 , Pg2 , Pg3 , Pg4 , Pg5 , Pg6 , Emission,
optimisation (ACO) [33], fuzzy genetic algorithm (FGA) MW MW MW MW MW MW ton/h
[34], and PSO for the cost objective function, SPEA [35],
GA [35] and PSO for loss objective function, enhanced IPSO 67.04 68.14 50 35 30 40 0.2058
genetic algorithm-decoupled quadratic load flow (EGA- PSO 67.13 68.94 49.86 34.89 29.67 39.94 0.2063
DQLF) [20], PSO [36] and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm GA 69.73 67.84 49.73 34.42 29.15 39.29 0.20723
optimisation (FAPSO) [36] for VSI objective function
which are summarised in Tables 2 – 4. Unfortunately, there
is no reference for the emission objective function to
compare with our results, therefore this objective is
optimised by GA, PSO and IPSO methods which are all
implemented in MATLAB computational environment and
the results are shown in Table 5. It is clear that the
proposed method can achieve better results with respect to
other algorithms and it is evident from Tables 2 – 5. These
values are not negligible because of the continuous
operations of power dispatch throughout the years as well
as the numerous power plants in the entire world. Also
the comparison of the best, worst and average solutions for Fig. 3 Best, worst and average of emission objective function for
the emission objective function is shown in Fig. 3 for the 50 trials

Table 6 Control variables related to multi-objective problem for PSO and IPSO algorithms

Cost, $/h Emission, ton/h Loss, MW VSI

PSO IPSO PSO IPSO PSO IPSO PSO IPSO

Pg1 , MW 177.126 177.0431 67.13 67.04 77.18 76.94 105.916 105.742

Pg2 , MW 49.172 49.209 68.94 68.14 60.36 60.14 73.26 73.32
Pg3 , MW 21.413 21.5135 49.86 50 49.55 49.532 48.92 48.32
Pg4 , MW 22.538 22.648 34.89 35 34.33 34.743 34.53 35
Pg5 , MW 10.621 10.4146 29.67 30 30 30 10 10
Pg6 , MW 12 12 39.94 40 39.84 39.74 12.19 12
Vg1 1.05 1.05 1.0287 1.0351 1.05 1.047 1.0493 1.05
Vg2 1.0442 1.0462 1.0341 1.0273 1.0426 1.044 1.0485 1.047
Vg3 1.446 1.0459 1.0387 1.0417 0.985 0.976 1.049 1.049
Vg4 1.0408 1.04165 1.0254 1.0248 1.0372 1.035 1.026 1.021
Vg5 0.9601 0.95231 1.0317 1.0321 0.973 0.984 1.025 1.023
Vg6 1.05 1.05 1.0395 1.041 1.0436 1.042 1.031 1.033
T6 – 9 , pu 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.98
T6 – 10 , pu 0.99 0.98 1.02 1.01 0.98 0.98 0.92 0.91
T4 – 12 , pu 1.01 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.01 0.97 0.97
T27 – 28 , pu 1.02 1.02 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 1.01 1.02
Qc10 25.62 27.27 11.85 12.53 15.03 15.81 27.84 28.62
Qc24 23.51 22.43 8.251 8.741 12.42 11.63 23.36 23.79
Cost 802.105 801.97 954.475 954.248 942.188 941.672 869.47 866.11393
emission 0.3665 0.3513 0.2063 0.2058 0.20834 0.20807 0.2471 0.247089
loss 13.58 13.39 5.385 5.362 5.1204 5.0732 14.158 14.001
VSI 0.1197 0.1192 0.1152 0.1131 0.1307 0.1294 0.1042 0.1037

522 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851

proposed approach, PSO and GA algorithms. It can be
noticed from this figure that the proposed algorithm can
obtain better results with respect to other mentioned
algorithms. The emission difference between the highest
and lowest emission is only 0.08 ton/h, which confirms the
effectiveness of the proposed method.
From Table 6, it is clear that the control settings
corresponding to the cost-based OPF result in a reduction in
fuel cost but cause the system loss to increase by 146% of
its base case value and VSI to decrease by 48% of its base
case value. From the above mentioned statement, it is clear
that the cost and VSI are in line with each other, but cost
and loss are not in line with each other. Minimisation of
emission causes the system loss and VSI to decrease by
1.25 and 50.8% of their base case values, respectively. The
Fig. 4 Two-dimensional Pareto-optimal fronts
a Cost loss
b Emission–cost
c Emission–loss
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
www.ietdl.org
minimisation of the loss objective results in the reduction of
6.5% in loss and 43% reduction in the VSI. Moreover, the
minimisation of the VSI objective results in a 55%
reduction in the VSI over its base case. Therefore it is clear
that considering a specific objective function in the OPF
problem cannot obtain a solution which satisfies other
objective functions, and for achieving a result that satisfies
some objectives, it is necessary to solve the multi-objective
OPF problem.
Case II: In this case, the proposed problem is handled as a
multi-objective optimisation problem, whereas each two
and three objective functions are optimised simultaneously.
All obtained Pareto fronts with the IPSO algorithm are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for two-dimensional Pareto fronts
and Fig. 6 for three-dimensional Pareto fronts.
Fig. 5 Pareto-optimal front for
a Cost voltage stability index
b Emission–voltage stability index
c Voltage stability index loss
523
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 6 Three-dimensional Pareto fronts for different objective functions
a Voltage stability index – emission loss
b Voltage stability index – emission–cost
c Loss–emission–cost
d Voltage stability index – cost– loss
It is worthwhile to say that each Pareto-optimal solution is an
optional choice for a system operator. As a matter of fact, after
acquiring the Pareto-optimal solutions, the decision maker
needs to choose one best compromised solution according to
the specific preference for different applications. In this
regard, (41) is computed for all non-dominated solutions,
after that they are sorted according to their Nm value, the best
solution among them is considered as a best compromised
solution. It is noted that in (40), the importance of each
objective function should be determined (in this study b1 ,
b2 , b3 and b4 are importance of cost, emission, loss and VSI
Nobj
i=1 bi = 1). The
objective functions, respectively, also
results of selecting the best compromise over Pareto-optimal
solutions are proposed in Table 7. By comparing the results,
the following observations can be inferred: in case I, when
each objective is minimised individually, its value is the best
one over cases II–IV. Also, it can be seen that when each
objective reaches its minimum value, the other objectives’
value will increase with respect to their minimum (when they
are minimised as single objective process). Also in cases II–
IV the values of the objective functions are shown for different
weight factors. In other words, the importance of the objective
functions is considered by weight factors. For instance, the
cost function and emission are 860.421 $/h and 0.2383 ton/h,
respectively, when b2 ¼ 0.8 and b1 ¼ 0.2 in case II, in
contrast when b1 ¼ 0.8 and b2 ¼ 0.2, the cost and emission
are 823.134 $/h and 0.2751 ton/h, respectively. It is obvious
that by raising the weight factor the significance of objective
function is raised and consequently its value is diminished.
524
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
Case II-A: Two-dimensional optimisation: All two-
dimensional Pareto fronts for different objective functions
are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. It is clear that the proposed IPSO
algorithm is able to obtain well-distributed Pareto-optimal
fronts. The best compromise solution which is found by the
fuzzy decision method according to (41) is shown in each
figure. In the proposed approach the trade-off among
the competing objectives is obtained by emphasising on
non-dominated solutions and getting a well-distributed set of
solutions, respectively. These result in finding a set of
well-distributed Pareto-optimal solutions.
Fig. 5a shows the Pareto-optimal front for fuel cost and VSI
objective functions. The best compromise solution is 822.72 $/h
and 0.10916. The fuel cost and VSI values in the best
compromise solution are very close to their optimised values,
whereas these objectives are optimised individually, the truth
of the aforementioned statement is clear in all Pareto fronts.
All the above features are provided by applying the mutation
and self-adaptive method for tuning the learning factors,
because these methods increase the search ability of the PSO
by adapting its learning factors according to its convergence
trajectory and increasing its population diversity.
Being the minimum values of both objectives in each
two-dimensional Pareto front has approved the statement that
the proposed method is able to cover the entire trade-off
front. Pareto fronts also almost show that there is no gap in
their shapes except some gaps which may appear in some
regions because of the nature of the proposed multi-objective
OPF problem and objectives.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
 www.ietdl.org
Table 7 Multi-objective obtained results for different weight factors

Cases b1 b2 b3 b4 Cost, $/h Emission, ton/h Loss, MW VSI

case I – – – – 801.978 – – –
– – – – – 0.2058 – –
– – – – – – 5.0732 –
– – – – – – – 0.1037
case II 0.8 0.2 0 0 823.134 0.2751 – –
0.5 0.5 0 0 841.052 0.2585 – –
0.2 0.8 0 0 860.421 0.2383 – –
0 0 0.8 0.2 – – 6.821 0.1121
0 0 0.5 0.5 – – 7.219 0.1087
0 0 0.2 0.8 – – 7.913 0.1073
0 0.8 0.2 0 – 0.2061 5.213 –
0 0.5 0.5 0 – 0.2063 5.179 –
0 0.2 0.8 0 – 0.2066 5.162 –
0.8 0 0 0.2 815.109 – – 0.1105
0.5 0 0 0.5 822.638 – – 0.1092
0.2 0 0 0.8 832.374 – – 0.1085
0.8 0 0.2 0 839.843 – 8.976 –
0.5 0 0.5 0 850.916 – 7.893 –
0.2 0 0.08 0 869.731 – 6.775 –
0 0.8 0 0.2 – 0.2146 – 0.1073
0 0.5 0 0.5 – 0.2226 – 0.10586
0 0.2 0 0.8 – 0.2286 – 0.1051
case III 0.3 0.6 0.1 0 867.854 0.2489 8.793 –
0.3 0.1 0.6 0 855.281 0.3169 6.184 –
0 0.2 0.7 0.1 – 0.2496 7.818 0.1537
0 0.7 0.2 0.1 – 0.2136 9.632 0.1243
0.3 0 0.3 0.4 889. 631 – 11.357 0.1137
0.4 0 0.3 0.3 872.481 – 11.152 0.1185
0.5 0.3 0 0.2 828.632 0.3613 – 0.1286
0.2 0.3 0 0.5 923.452 0.27084 – 0.1136
case IV 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 910.542 0.2441 10.4521 0.1124
0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 883.514 0.3659 13.892 0.1238
0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 897.371 0.3341 12.764 0.1213
0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 869.518 0. 3715 15.518 0.1208

Such important optimal solutions could not have been
discovered without the proposed multi-objective Pareto
optimisation method. Unlike the single-objective optimisation,
there are two targets in a multi-objective optimisation: (i)
convergence to the Pareto-optimal set and (ii) maintaining the
diversity in Pareto-optimal solution. These two goals are
satisfied by the proposed method. The Chaotic formula for the
inertia weight and the self-adaptive method for computing the
learning factors beside the proposed mutation in the presented
IPSO algorithm appear to work well for multi-objective
problems.
Case II-B: three-dimensional Pareto fronts: In this case, three
competing objectives are optimised simultaneously by the
proposed algorithm and the obtained results are shown in
Fig. 6. It is clear that cost, emission, loss and VSI cannot
be further improved without degrading the other two related
optimised objectives. Fig. 6 clearly shows the relationships
among all presented objective functions. Between the
m 2
obtained Pareto-optimal solutions, it is necessary to choose
one of them as a best compromise for implementation which
has been done by the fuzzy decision maker. It is necessary to
note that like the two-dimensional Pareto fronts, the best
compromise is shown in red colour in this case.
It can once again be proved that the proposed method is
giving well-distributed Pareto-optimal front. The results
confirm that the multi-objective IPSO algorithm is an
impressive tool for solving the multi-objective optimisation
problem where multiple Pareto-optimal solutions can be
obtained in a single run.
Case II-C: authenticate the obtained Pareto-optimal
solutions: Since one of the significant targets of the
proposed approach is solving the multi-objective problem,
so it is very important to use some criterions to authenticate
the obtained Pareto-optimal solutions. Moreover this study
compares the obtained Pareto solutions with those which
are obtained by PSO and NSGA II [37] optimisation
algorithms. In this regard, this study utilises GD, SP and
diversity metric criterions which are described as follows:
Generational distance: GD criterion is proposed by Van
Veldhuizen and Lamont [38] to estimate the value of being
far of the elements in the set of non-dominated vectors
found so far from those in the Pareto-optimal set. This
criterion is explained as follows

i=1 di
GD = (48)
m
where di is the Euclidean distance (measured in objective
space) between each of these non-dominated solution
vectors and the nearest member of the Pareto-optimal set. It
is noticeable to note that a value of GD ¼ 0 indicates that
all the elements generated are in the Pareto-optimal set and
consequently whatever this criterion be closed to zero it

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527 525
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012
www.ietdl.org
shows that all the generated elements are close to the Pareto-
optimal set. Therefore if this criterion is less, it is more
acceptable and the related Pareto-optimal solutions have
better condition respect to those which have greater GD.
Spacing: Another important factor of the obtained Pareto
solutions is the distribution of these solutions in the Pareto
fronts. In this regard, a criterion in which measures the range
(distance) variance of neighbouring vectors in the non-
dominated solutions which are found so far is proposed in
and shows the space among Pareto-optimal solutions in a
Pareto front are divided equally.
Diversity metric: This metric does not require any optimal
Pareto front and bases on the Hamming and Euclidean
distance between solutions. If there is m number of points
on a Pareto front and the space is N-dimensional then
centroid Ci for ith dimension is computed as follows

m
[18]. Since the ‘beginning’ and the ‘end’ of the current Pareto xij
j=1
front found are known, a suitably delineated metric judges Ci = , for i = 1, . . . , Nobj (50)
how the solutions in such front are scattered. This criterion is m
defined as follows
where xij indicates the ith dimension of the jth point. So the
diversity measuring D-metric is calculated as follows

1  m
SP W (d − di )2 (49)  
Nobj m
m − 1 i=1 D- metric = (xij − Ci )2 (51)
i=1 j=1

where di = minj (|F1i (X ) − F1j (X )| + |F2i (X )− F2j (X )| + · · · +
|FNi obj (X ) − FNj obj (X )|), i, j ¼ 1, . . ., m, d is the mean of all di .
A value of zero for this metric indicates all members of the
Pareto front currently available are equidistantly spaced.
Therefore the less value of this parameter is more desirable
Although this metric is greater, it shows that all the elements
generated are close to each other. In other words, the distances
between Pareto-optimal solutions in a Pareto front are less.
Therefore the higher value of this parameter shows the
higher diversity of the obtained Pareto-optimal solutions.

Table 8 Best, worst and average values of GD, SP and D-metric for different optimisation algorithms in two-dimensional Pareto fronts

Algorithms IPSO PSO NSGA II

Objectives Best Average Worst Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

loss –emission SP 0.001360 0.001732 0.002573 0.004146 0.009988 0.015405 0.003976 0.006742 0.011860
GD 0.000153 0.000948 0.001984 0.000775 0.000943 0.001075 0.000666 0.000741 0.000857
D-metric 0.812698 0.739690 0.631683 0.275222 0.222158 0.144417 0.312606 0.283617 0.241940
cost –emission SP 1.697219 2.106907 3.084262 2.703175 4.715341 6.578263 1.722061 2.874325 4.582061
GD 0.338549 0.397213 0.484126 0.438114 0.541632 0.627423 0.438114 0.479327 0.575769
D-metric 132919.7 119893.2 98674.3 89796.0 70025.8 52662.7 93183.4 81957.3 57932.1
emission –VSI SP 0.000369 0.000486 0.000674 0.000410 0.000925 0.001352 0.000397 0.000726 0.001233
GD 0.000070 0.000079 0.000105 0.000078 0.000142 0.000183 0.000072 0.000089 0.000123
D-metric 0.017317 0.015732 0.012329 0.013486 0.010163 0.007736 0.013908 0.009734 0.008954
loss –VSI SP 0.082554 0.116354 0.174527 0.080661 0.203413 0.309906 0.084822 0.146212 0.267528
GD 0.018233 0.019843 0.022153 0.020785 0.024932 0.028515 0.019075 0.021075 0.024539
D-metric 469.2634 441.7878 386.9124 415.7619 308.4173 246.7909 419.9626 310.9859 249.5638
cost –loss SP 0.897170 1.093265 1.582948 1.276503 2.274323 3.040720 0.987462 1.361819 2.456410
GD 0.107436 0.118743 0.139172 0.149522 0.174715 0.192352 0.117923 0.129876 0.155830
D-metric 151051.83 142753.38 130387.94 125264.40 99093.67 76845.95 137017.93 113214.72 81402.35
cost –VSI SP 1.270777 1.510842 1.973527 1.544961 2.978063 4.132463 1.300492 1.963890 3.477516
GD 0.335409 0.345183 0.369821 0.399661 0.493415 0.579372 0.364580 0.409365 0.490397
D-metric 13545.013 12494.282 10650.715 10379.771 7752.827 5629.884 10459.242 8642.474 6004.651

Table 9 Best, worst and average values of GD, SP and D-metric for different optimisation algorithms in three-dimensional Pareto fronts
Algorithms IPSO PSO NSGA II

Objectives Best Average Worst Best Average Worst Best Average Worst

loss –emission –VSI SP 0.0186168 0.02136 0.02979 0.05112 0.11131 0.15950 0.03463 0.04842 0.06421
GD 0.0441499 0.04682 0.05176 0.15202 0.20127 0.23329 0.09625 0.10853 0.12632
D-metric 410.006 386.453 328.526 270.733 202.482 173.301 348.752 291.013 217.273
cost –emission –VSI SP 0.30100 0.37511 0.52137 1.05239 2.31160 3.31081 0.86433 1.29525 1.88078
GD 0.04164 0.04348 0.05306 0.16825 0.21631 0.24849 0.11749 0.13174 0.15094
D-metric 348652.8 317773.4 262884.2 210473.5 149029.5 119570.0 276482.8 242188.5 185879.4
cost –emission –loss SP 1.252664 1.41075 1.91458 4.21748 6.95823 8.63428 2.34184 2.95173 4.13837
GD 0.179002 0.19075 0.21164 0.51074 0.67310 0.75043 0.32846 0.37361 0.43633
D-metric 160650.4 148863.7 129221.1 92543.8 68442.8 54541.6 127381.5 102321.6 76268.4
cost –loss –VSI SP 0.63177 0.74220 0.96737 1.53205 3.37516 4.86042 0.97465 1.54174 2.28166
GD 0.03526 0.04792 0.07493 0.09275 0.10844 0.11428 0.05282 0.05208 0.06733
D-metric 391962.4 372188.8 318414.6 273184.5 201629.5 150060.2 321846.9 281241.0 232051.6

526 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515 –527
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851

Tables 8 and 9 depict the obtained best, worst and average of
GD, SP and D-metric for IPSO, PSO and NSGA II in 25 runs.
From these tables, it is clear that the proposed algorithm can
obtain better Pareto front with respect to other algorithms,
because the values of SP and GD related to solutions of
IPSO algorithm are lower than those obtained by PSO and
NSGA II. Also the value of D-metric related to proposed
algorithm is greater than those obtained by other algorithms.
These tables reveal the superiority of the proposed algorithm
in solving the multi-objective optimisation problem once again.
7 Conclusion
The goal of the proposed multi-objective OPF problem is to
compute advised set points for power system controls that
satisfy the security, the environment and the economical
conditions simultaneously. The most important privilege of
the proposed approach for the multi-objective formulation is
obtaining several non-dominated solutions allowing the
system operator to use his/her personal preference in
selecting one solution for implementation. Furthermore the
proposed fuzzy decision method helps the power system
operator to apply his/her decisions very easily. Also in
single objective cases, the proposed approach can obtain
better results with respect to other algorithm in the
literature. In multi-objective cases, the proposed method
proves its ability to obtain well-distributed Pareto fronts.
Since the proposed algorithm profits the chaos formula, the
self-adaptive method and mutation, its search ability is
increased, therefore this method is suggested for solving the
complicated optimisation problems.
8 References
1 Jabr, R.A., Pal, B.C.: ‘Intermittent wind generation in optimal power
flow dispatching’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2009, 3, (1), pp. 66–74
2 Niknam, T., Narimani, M.R., Jabbari, M., Malekpour, A.R.: ‘A modified
shuffle frog leaping algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow’,
Energy, 2011, 36, pp. 6420–6432
3 Niknam, T., Narimani, M.R., Aghaie, J., Nayeripour, M.: ‘Modified
honey bee mating optimization to solve dynamic optimal power flow
with considering generator constraints’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.,
2011, 5, (10), pp. 989–1002
4 Burchet, R.C., Happ, H.H., Vierath, D.R.: ‘Quadratically convergent
optimal power flow’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1984, 103,
(11), pp. 3267–3276
5 Al-Muhawesh Tareq, A., Qamber Isa, S.: ‘The established mega watt
linear programming-based optimal power flowmodel applied to the
real power 56-bus system in eastern province of Saudi Arabia’,
Energy, 2008, 33, (1), pp. 12–21
6 Habiabollahzadeh, H., Luo, G., Semlyen, A.: ‘Hydrothermal optimal
power flow based on combined linear and nonlinear programming
methodology’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1989, 4, (2), pp. 530–537
7 Yan, X., Quintana, V.H.: ‘Improving an interior point based OPF by
dynamic adjustments of step sizes and tolerances’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 1999, 14, (2), pp. 709– 717
8 AlRashidi, M.R., El-Hawary, M.E.: ‘Hybrid particle swarm optimization
approach for solving the discrete OPF problem considering the
valve loading effects’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2007, 22, (4),
pp. 2030– 2038
9 Niknam, T.: ‘A new fuzzy adaptive hybrid particle swarm optimization
algorithm for non-linear, non-smooth and non-convex economic
dispatch problem’, Appl. Energy, 2009, 87, (1), pp. 327– 339
10 Niknam, T., Azad Farsani, E.: ‘A hybrid self-adaptive particle swarm
optimization and modified shuffled frog leaping algorithm for
distribution feeder reconfiguration’, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel., 2010, 23,
(8), pp. 1340– 1349
11 Niknam, T., DoagouMojarrad, H., ZeinoddiniMeymand, H.: ‘A novel
hybrid particle swarm optimization for economic dispatch with valve-
point loading effects’, Energy Convers. Manage., 2011, 52, (4),
pp. 1800– 1809
12 Niknam, T.: ‘An efficient hybrid evolutionary algorithm based on PSO
and HBMO algorithms for multi-objective distribution feeder
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 515– 527
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0851
www.ietdl.org
reconfiguration’, Energy Convers. Manage., 2009, 50, (8),
pp. 2074– 2082
13 El-Keib, A.A., Ma, H., Hart, J.L.: ‘Economic dispatch in view of the clean
air act of 1990’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1994, 9, (2), pp. 972– 778
14 Andrew, K., Haiyang, Z.: ‘Optimization of wind turbine energy and
power factor with an evolutionary computation algorithm’, Energy,
2010, 35, (3), pp. 1324– 1332
15 Abido, M.A.: ‘A novel multi objective evolutionary algorithm for
environmental/economic power dispatch’, Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
2003, 65, (1), pp. 71–81
16 Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., Grierson, D.: ‘Comparison among five
evolutionary-based optimization algorithms’, Adv. Eng. Inf., 2005, 19,
(1), pp. 43–53
17 Niknam, T., ZeinoddiniMeymand, H., DoagouMojarrad, H.: ‘A practical
multi-objective PSO algorithm for optimal operation management of
distribution network with regard to fuel cell power plants’, Renew.
Energy, 2011, 36, (5), pp. 1529–1544
18 Coello Coello, C.A., Toscano Pulido, G., Salazar Lechuga, M.:
‘Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization’, IEEE
Trans. Evol. Comput., 2004, 8, (3), pp. 256– 279
19 Panigrahi, B.K., RavikumarPandi, V., Das, S., Das, S.: ‘Multiobjective
fuzzy dominance based bacterial foraging algorithm to solve economic
emission dispatch problem’, Energy, 2010, 35, (12), pp. 4761– 4770
20 SailajaKumari, M., Maheswarapu, S.: ‘Enhanced genetic algorithm
based computation technique for multi-objective optimal power flow
solution’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2010, 32, (6), pp. 736 –742
21 Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.: ‘Particle swarm optimization’, IEEE Int.
Conf. Neural Netw., 1995, 4, pp. 1942– 1948
22 Park, J.B., Jeong, Y.W., Kim, H.H., Shin, J.R.: ‘An improved particle
swarm optimization for economic dispatch with valve-point effect’,
Int. J. Innov. Energy Syst. Power, 2006, 1, (1), pp. 1 –7
23 Caponetto, R., Fortuna, L., Fazzino, S., Xibilia, M.G.: ‘Chaotic
sequences to improve the performance of evolutionary algorithms’,
IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2003, 7, (3), pp. 289– 304
24 Vaisakh, K., Srinivas, L.R.: ‘Genetic evolving ant direction HDE for
OPF with non-smooth cost functionsand statistical analysis’, Expert
Syst. Appl., 2011, 38, (3), pp. 2046– 2062
25 Niknam, T., Zeinoddini Meymand, H., Doagou Mojarrad, H.: ‘An
efficient algorithm for multi-objective optimal operation management
of distribution network considering fuel cell power plants’, Energy,
2011, 36, (1), pp. 119–132
26 Alsac, O., Stott, B.: ‘Optimal load flow with steady-state security’, IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1974, 93, (3), pp. 745– 751
27 Yuryevich, J., Wong, K.P.: ‘Evolutionary programming based optimal
power flow algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1999, 14, (4),
pp. 1245– 1250
28 Abido, M.A.: ‘Optimal power flow using tabu search algorithm’, Electr.
Power Compon. Syst., 2002, 30, (5), pp. 469– 483
29 Costa, A.L., Simões Costa, A.: ‘Energy and ancillary service dispatch
through dynamic optimal power flow’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2007,
77, (8), pp. 1047–1055
30 Sayah, S., Zehar, K.: ‘Modified differential evolution algorithm for
optimal power flow with non-smooth cost functions’, Energy Convers.
Manage., 2008, 49, (11), pp. 3036– 3042
31 Bouktir, T., Slimani, L., Mahdad, B.: ‘Optimal power dispatch for large-
scale power system using stochastic search algorithms’, Int. J Power
Energy Syst., 2008, 28, (1), pp. 1– 10
32 Bakistzis, A.G., Biskas, P.N., Zoumas, C.E., Petridis, V.: ‘Optimal
power flow by enhanced genetic algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2002, 17, (2), pp. 229–236
33 Slimani, L., Bouktir, T.: ‘Economic power dispatch of power system
with pollution control using multi objective ant colony optimization’,
Int. J. Comput. Intell. Res., 2007, 3, (2), pp. 145– 153
34 Saini, A., Chaturvedi, D.K., Saxena, A.K.: ‘Optimal power flow
solution: a GA-fuzzy system approach’, Int.l J. Emerging Electr.
Power Syst., 2006, 5, (2), pp. 1– 21
35 Rosales Hernandez, Y., Hiyama, T.: ‘Minimization of voltage
deviations, power losses and control actions in a transmission power
system’. 15th Int. Conf. on Intelligent System Applications to Power
Systems (ISAP), 8 –12 November 2009, pp. 1 –5
36 Zhang, W., Liu, Y.: ‘Multi-objective reactive power and voltage control
based on fuzzy optimization strategy and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm’,
Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2008, 30, (9), pp. 525 –532
37 Jeyadevi, S., Baskar, S., Babulal, C.K., Willjuice Iruthayarajan, M.:
‘Solving multi objective optimal reactive power dispatch using modified
NSGA-II’, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2011, 33, (2), pp. 219–228
38 Van Veldhuizen, D.A., Lamont, G.B.: ‘Multiobjective evolutionary
algorithm research: a history and analysis’. Technical report TR-98-
03, Dept. Elec. Comput. Eng., Graduate School of Eng., Air Force
Inst. Technol., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA, 1998
527
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012