Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Multi-objective hybrid PSO-APO algorithm based security constrained

optimal power flow with wind and thermal generators
Kiran Teeparthi ⇑, D.M. Vinod Kumar
Department of Electrical Engineering, NIT Warangal, Warangal, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a new low level with teamwork heterogeneous hybrid particle swarm optimization and
Received 31 December 2016 artificial physics optimization (HPSO-APO) algorithm is proposed to solve the multi-objective security
Revised 9 March 2017 constrained optimal power flow (MO-SCOPF) problem. Being engaged with the environmental and total
Accepted 9 March 2017
production cost concerns, wind energy is highly penetrating to the main grid. The total production cost,
Available online 27 March 2017
active power losses and security index are considered as the objective functions. These are simultane-
ously optimized using the proposed algorithm for base case and contingency cases. Though PSO
Keywords:
algorithm exhibits good convergence characteristic, fails to give near optimal solution. On the other hand,
Multi-objective
Hybrid optimization algorithm
the APO algorithm shows the capability of improving diversity in search space and also to reach a near
Security constrained optimal power flow global optimum point, whereas, APO is prone to premature convergence. The proposed hybrid
Pareto optimal solution HPSO-APO algorithm combines both individual algorithm strengths, to get balance between global and
local search capability. The APO algorithm is improving diversity in the search space of the PSO algorithm.
The hybrid optimization algorithm is employed to alleviate the line overloads by generator rescheduling
during contingencies. The standard IEEE 30-bus and Indian 75-bus practical test systems are considered
to evaluate the robustness of the proposed method. The simulation results reveal that the proposed
HPSO-APO method is more efficient and robust than the standard PSO and APO methods in terms of get-
ting diverse Pareto optimal solutions. Hence, the proposed hybrid method can be used for the large inter-
connected power system to solve MO-SCOPF problem with integration of wind and thermal generators.
Ó 2017 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Due to rapid increase in electricity demand, the modern power
systems run close to their security limits to enhance the system
security during contingencies. The security assessment and
enhancement are two major concerns in the energy control centers
[1]. A security assessment is the analysis carried out to determine
what level; a power system is reasonably safe from unforeseen dis-
turbances (contingencies). The bottleneck of the security assess-
ment is contingency analysis. Security constrained optimal power
flow (SCOPF) is the highly non-linear OPF problem along with
the contingency analysis. This leads to implementation of preven-
tive control actions in the power system like generation reschedul-
ing, phase shifter positions, switching of FACTS devices, HVDC line
MW transfer, and load shedding to enhance the system security.
The environmental and cost concerns of the renewable energies
increase the integration to the power sector in the present
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Kiran.t39@nitw.ac.in (K. Teeparthi).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
scenario. The wind energy is the most proven available and grow-
ing energy in the entire world. Once wind plant is installed it
requires zero production cost and less maintenance than conven-
tional plants and also reduces the carbon emission.
Earlier, a number of conventional (mathematical based)
algorithms like gradient method, quadratic programming, linear
programming, mixed integer linear programming and nonlinear
programming (NLP) are proposed to solve the OPF problem
[2–4]. These methods face difficulty in handling the inequality con-
straints and not guarantee to reach an optimal solution. In addi-
tion, they will struck in the local optimum point in some cases
and exhibits poor convergence characteristic. Over the last years,
many researchers have tended to apply several non-conventional
(heuristic) methods for solving the OPF problem like simulated
annealing (SA) [5], genetic algorithm (GA) [6], enhanced GA
(EGA) [7], fuzzy based GA (FGA) [8], differential evolution (DE)
[9], modified differential evolution (MDE) [9], evolutionary pro-
gramming (EP) [10], improved EP (IEP) [11], particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO) [12], ant colony optimization (ACO) [13], honey
bee mating optimization (HBMO) [14], modified HBMO (MHBMO)
[14], modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm (MSFLA) [15].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.03.002
2215-0986/Ó 2017 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
412 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

However, some of these standard algorithms are suffering from The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals
premature convergence due to lack of diversity in search space. with the MO-SCOPF problem with wind energy subject to equality
One way to cope with these drawbacks, hybrid heuristic optimiza- and inequality constraints. The general framework of PSO, APO and
tion methods are implemented in practical and academic prob- proposed hybrid PSO-APO (HPSO-APO) algorithms for solving MO-
lems. The best results are found for OPF problem by hybrid SCOPF is discussed in Sections 3 and 4, whereas Section 5 illus-
methods [16–19]. trates the simulation and results of the proposed method. Finally,
OPF is a nonlinear problem which optimizes the objection func- conclusions are given in Section 6.
tion while satisfying a set of equality and inequality constraints.
The minimization of fuel cost is most generally used as the objec- 2. Problem formulation
tive function. However, other traditional objectives are minimiza-
tion of transmission real power losses, voltage stability index, Multi-objective security constrained OPF is a special type of OPF
voltage deviation, fuel emission, and security index. In traditional problem to minimize the objective functions simultaneously sub-
methods, multi-objective OPF (MO-OPF) problems are solved by jected to equality and inequality constraints by choosing the opti-
evolutionary algorithms (EA) which convert multi-objective prob- mal control variables like phase-shifter angles, active & reactive
lem to a single objective problem by an assigning suitable weight- power generations, transformer tap settings and voltages at PV
ing/scaling factors [20,21]. This approach gives only one solution in buses. In this paper, three objective functions were considered
a single run. It should be separately run for a set of weighting fac- namely, total production cost, security index, and active power loss.
tors to get the Pareto optimal solutions and this increase the com-
putational time. To rectify the above-mentioned problem, EAs have 2.1. Objective functions
been reported to solve MO-OPF problem to attain the Pareto opti-
mal points [22–30]. Kadir Abaci et al. [23] implemented DEA based 2.1.1. Total production cost
OPF for solving single and multi-objective functions and results are The total production cost including thermal and wind generator
compared with other reported methods presented in the literature. units can be expressed as follows [32].
An adaptive group search optimization based MO-OPF problem is
X
Ng X
Nw X
Nw
presented in [24]. A modified decomposition based multi- f TPC ¼ ðai P2gi þ bi P gi þ ci Þ þ C p ðPshed;i Þ þ C r ðPshed;i Þ ð1Þ
objective OPF problem is solved with consideration of different i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
objectives like fuel cost, emission, voltage deviation and power
where P gi is the active power generation at ith bus; N g and N w rep-
losses [25]. The adjustment of control variables like active power
resents the available number of thermal and wind generators; ai , bi
generations and TCSC device are used to alleviate line overloads
and ci are generator cost coefficients. The first part of Eq. (1) implies
during contingencies for enhancing the system security. The
the fuel cost of available thermal generators, and second and third
multi-objective optimization problem is formulated by combing
terms indicate the overestimation (C p ðPshed;i Þ) and underestimation
the installation cost of TCSC device and fuel cost of thermal units
(C r ðPshed;i Þ) costs of wind energy.
[26]. In order to enhance the system security, a modified SFLA is
Mathematically, the stochastic nature of wind speed follows the
proposed to solve OPF problem incorporating UPFC device [27].
Weibull probability density function (PDF) over a time which is
In [28], fuzzy adaptive PSO method is implemented to solve OPF
given by
problem and optimal placement of UPFC device simultaneously.
  ðk1Þ
Cheng- Jin Ye et.al [29] proposed a multi-objective OPF model with k v v k
considering rotor angle stability as the objective function rather
f ðv Þ ¼ ðeÞð c Þ ;0 < v < 1 ð2Þ
c c
than taking as inequality constraint. In [30], fuzzy based grenade
explosion optimization method is successfully applied for solving where v represents the wind speed; k and c are scale and shape fac-
multi-objective OPF problem. tors of the wind speed respectively. The output power of the wind
The main contribution of this paper is to solve multi-objective generator with a given wind speed is expressed as
8
security constrained OPF (MO-SCOPF) using a new hybrid particle >
> 0; 0 < v < v in
swarm optimization and artificial physics optimization (HPSO- >
>  
< p v v in ; v in 6 v 6 v r
APO) algorithm. The APO and PSO methods are two meta- p¼ r v r v in ð3Þ
heuristic population-based optimization approaches inspired by >
>
>
>
pr ; vr 6 v 6 vo
:
nature of physics and behavior of bird flocking respectively. The 0; v > vo
proposed hybrid PSO-APO algorithm combines both individual
Here v in , v r and v o are cut-in, rated and cut-out wind speeds
algorithm strengths, to get the balance between global and local
respectively and pr is the rated output power of the wind genera-
search capability. The APO algorithm is improving diversity in
the search space of the PSO algorithm so as to avoid the trapping tor. The probability density function (f P ðpÞ) for linear portion of
of local optima. In this paper, three different objective functions the wind speed is given by
  ðk1Þ
have been considered namely, total production cost, active power kðv r  v in Þ v in pr þ pðv r  v in Þ
f P ðpÞ ¼
losses, and security index. Generally, most of the multi-objective cpr cpr
based optimization methods use non-dominated sorting and  !
v in pr þ pðv r  v in Þ k
strength Pareto approaches for achieving the optimal trade-off  exp  ð4Þ
curve. This paper uses non-dominated sorting and crowding dis- cpr
tance approach to maintaining a diverse in Pareto optimal points
For discrete portion, the probabilities of getting no power out-
[31]. Finally, a fuzzy membership approach is used to get compro-
put and rated power output of the wind turbine are as follows
mising solution over the trade-off curve. The proposed multi-   k    k 
objective HPSO-APO (MOHPSO-APO) algorithm is tested on IEEE v in vo
f P ðp ¼ 0Þ ¼ 1  exp  þ exp  ð5Þ
30-bus and practical Indian 75-bus systems. The simulation results c c
show that the proposed method is more robust and efficient than
  k    k 
the standard multi-objective PSO (MOPSO) and multi-objective vr vo
f P ðp ¼ pr Þ ¼ exp  þ exp  ð6Þ
APO (MOAPO) methods in terms of obtaining a well distributed c c
Pareto front.
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 413

The costs associated with respective to available wind energy Pmin

w 6 P 6 Pmax
w w 2 Nw ð14Þ
are expressed as follows.
Z P shed Q min 6 Q gi 6 Q max i ¼ 1; 2 . . . Ng ð15Þ
gi gi
C p ðPshed Þ ¼ K p ðPshed  pÞf p ðpÞdp ð7Þ
0
V min
i 6 V i 6 V max
i i ¼ 1; 2 . . . Nb ð16Þ
Z Pr
C r ðPshed Þ ¼ K r ðp  Pshed Þf p ðpÞdp ð8Þ T min 6 T i 6 T max i ¼ 1; 2 . . . NTF ð17Þ
i i
P shed
The inequality constraints are represented as active power limits of
where K p and K r are two penalty factors for overestimation and
wind and thermal generators, voltage magnitudes at all buses, and
underestimation costs, f p ðpÞ is the probability of getting wind power
transformer tapping positions (T).Generally, a common approach
for a particular time. The values of K p = 2 and K r = 5 $/MWh are to be
for solving the constrained optimization problem is the use of a
considered [32]. Because of uncertainty nature of wind power,
penalty function. The constrained problem is transformed into an
scheduled wind power (Pshed ) may or may not be equal to the avail-
unconstrained one, by penalizing the constraints and building a sin-
able wind power (p) at the given time. In this regard, two cost factors
gle fitness function. Initially, the optimization problem is converted
such as overestimation and underestimation costs are imposed with
to the unconstrained optimization problem from the constrained
the thermal fuel cost function.
one by penalizing the equality and inequality constraints to each
optimization function. For ith objective, a fitness function ~f can i
2.1.2. Active power losses
be written as
Solving load flow equations the voltage magnitude and phase
angle at each bus can be computed and these are optimized to X
Neq
~f ðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ k ðE ðxÞ2 Þ þ kmax½0;I ðxÞ2  for i ¼ 1;2;...no of objective functions
i j k
achieve the minimum active power losses. The active power loss i
j¼1
for each transmission line can be calculated as, k ¼ 1;2;...N ueq
X
NL h i ð18Þ
f loss ¼ g k V 2i þ V 2j  2V i V j cosðdi  dj Þ ð9Þ
k¼1 where Ej ðxÞ and Ik ð
xÞ are equality and inequality constraints, respec-
tively. k represents the penalty factor and the value has considered
as 1000.
2.1.3. Security index
The third objective function is the security index, which shows
3. General framework of standard PSO and APO algorithms
the severity of contingency during the line outages and it is
expressed as follows.
In this section, a brief review of standard PSO and APO algo-
XNL  2m
Pk rithms are presented.
f SI ¼ ð10Þ
k¼1
Pmax
k
3.1. Standard PSO algorithm
where NL represents total number of transmission lines; Pk and P max
k
represents active power flow and maximum power flow at kth line PSO is a population-based heuristic optimization method
respectively. inspired from bird foraging, which was developed by Kennedy
and Eberhart [33]. It can be briefed that birds communicate with
2.2. Constraints each other during food searching. Each bird tries to move towards
the bird with having more food. In PSO, each bird is treated as the
2.2.1. Equality constraints particle and each particle having its own position, velocity, and fit-
The basic power flow equations at given ith bus can be mathe- ness and it is evaluated in the given search space. Each particle
matically expressed in the given below. These non-linear algebraic having its own best position, called pbest and best position in the
load flow equations are solved by using Newton- Raphson (polar) entire population is denoted as the gbest value. After defining
method. These equations determine voltage magnitude and phase pbest and gbest positions, the velocity and position of each particle
angle at each bus except the slack bus. are updated using (19) and (20).
X
Nb v i ðt þ 1Þ ¼ w  v i ðtÞ þ C 1  randðÞ  ðpbesti  xi ðtÞÞ
ðPgen;i  Pload;i Þ  V i V j jY ij j cosðdij  hij Þ ¼ 0 ð11Þ
þ C 2  randðÞ  ðgbest  xi ðtÞÞ ð19Þ
j¼1

X
Nb
xi ðt þ 1Þ ¼ xi ðtÞ þ v i ðt þ 1Þ ð20Þ
ðQ gen;i  Q load;i Þ  V i V j jY ij j sinðdij  hij Þ ¼ 0 ð12Þ
j¼1 where v i ðtÞ and xi ðtÞare the velocity and position of ith particle at
iteration t, w is the weighting factor, C 1 and C 2 are acceleration con-
where, Nb represents total number of buses, Pgen;i and Q gen;i are spec-
stants. The first part of (19) indicates the momentum part (history)
ified active and reactive power generations at each bus, P load;i and
of PSO. The second and third terms are indicating cognitive and
Q load;i are active and reactive power loads; V i , V j and Y ij represents
social parts of PSO respectively. The velocities and positions are
the magnitude of bus voltage and bus admittance matrix respec- updated iteratively until limit on iterations reaches its maximum
tively; dij and hij are voltage and admittance phase angles between limit. The general steps involved in finding the optimum values of
buses i-j. generations to solve MO-SCOPF problem using the standard MOPSO
is shown in Fig 1.
2.2.2. Inequality constraints
The inequality constraints for generator and network limits are 3.2. Standard APO algorithm
expressed in terms of lower and upper limits as follows.

Pmin 6 Pgi 6 Pmax i ¼ 1; 2: . . . Ng ð13Þ In APO method [34], each solution in the multidimensional
gi gi
search space is treated as particles which are randomly distributed
414 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

Read system data and Generate the Evaluate the objective Generate new
also initialize the population functions and rank them offspring vector
PSO control randomly within a according to crowding using velocity
parameters given search space distance approach equation

No

Evaluate objective
Sort population based on non-
Update Pbest functions with respective
Meeting end dominated and crowding distance
and Gbest to the new population and
criterion? approach and Select non
positions combines with old
dominated set with best rank
population
Yes
Return the best
values

Fig. 1. General steps to solve MO-SCOPF problem using MOPSO method.

in the search space. Each particle constitutes mass, position, and X

pop

velocity. Based on the attractive and repulsive forces, each particle F i ðtÞ ¼ F ij ðtÞ ð24Þ
j2best;j–i
tends to larger masses close to global solution. These forces
between the particles can guide the entire population to obtain where G is the gravitational constant and F i ðtÞ is the total force
the near global optimum solution. This algorithm is three-fold exerted on individual i by all other individuals. Finally, using force
namely initialization, calculation of force and motion. The main and mass equations computes the velocities and positions of the
three steps of APO algorithm are mathematically modeled as each individual and updated iteratively using (25) and (26).
follows.
v i ðt þ 1Þ ¼ w  v i ðtÞ þ a  F i ðtÞ=mi ð25Þ
1. Population is randomly initialized in the given D – dimensional
search space. Evaluate best (bestðtÞ) and worst (worstðtÞ) fitness
xi ðt þ 1Þ ¼ xi ðtÞ þ v i ðt þ 1Þ ð26Þ
values.
2. Calculate the mass of each individual according to the best and where v i ðtÞ and xi ðtÞ are the velocity and position of ith particle
worst values. respectively at iteration t. a is a random number in the range [0, 1]
and w is the inertia weight. Fig. 2 shows the general steps for find-
bestðtÞ ¼ min fit i ðtÞ ing the optimum values of generations to solve MO-SCOPF problem
i¼1;...pop
ð21Þ using the standard MOAPO method.
worstðtÞ ¼ max fit i ðtÞ
i¼1...pop

 
bestðtÞ  fit i ðtÞ
mi ðtÞ ¼ exp
worstðtÞ  bestðtÞ
where fiti ðtÞ is the fitness of ith population at iteration t; mi ðtÞ is
the mass of each particle at tth iteration. By using mass equation
compute the forces on each individual (F ij ðtÞ) in each iteration is
given in (23).
3. Using mass equation compute the forces on each individual
(F ij ðtÞ) in each iteration is given as follows
 in parallel and it is a heterogeneous method because of combining
Gmi ðtÞmj ðtÞðxj ðtÞ  xi ðtÞÞ ; if fitj ðtÞ < fiti ðtÞ
F ij ðtÞ ¼
Gmi ðtÞmj ðtÞðxj ðtÞ  xi ðtÞÞ ; if fitj ðtÞ > fiti ðtÞ
4. Proposed hybrid PSO-APO algorithm to solve MO-SCOPF
ð22Þ problem
The classifications of hybrid optimization methods are
presented in [35]. The hybridization can be done as low level or
high level with relay or teamwork method as heterogeneous or
homogeneous approaches. In this paper, a low level with team-
work heterogeneous approach is used. The proposed algorithm is
low level because of using the combined functionality of both
algorithms. It is teamwork because of both algorithms operated
two different algorithms to produce final results. The general pro-
ð23Þ
cedure to solve security constrained OPF by HPSO-APO method is
given as follows.

Evaluate the objective

Read system data and also
initializethe APO control
parameters
Generate the population Calculate the mass and
functions and rank them
randomly within a given forces exerted on each
according to crowding
search space particle
distance approach

No

Sort population based on non- Evaluate objective functions

Meeting end dominated and crowding distance with respective to the new Generate new population
criterion? approach and Select non dominated population and combines with using velocity equation
set with best rank old population

Yes

Return the best

values

Fig. 2. General steps to solve MO-SCOPF problem using MOAPO method.

 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 415

Step 1: (a) Read the input data viz. line data, bus data, and gen- distance approach to obtain the Pareto optimal solutions [31].
erator data. Also, initialize the APO and PSO control parameters. Finally, choose one compromising solution out of Pareto optimal
(b) Generate an initial population randomly within the given vector; this can be done using fuzzy model approach. Each objec-
search space. tive function (f i ) of particle p is fuzzified with a membership func-
Step 2: Compute the value of fitness for each particle and tion (lpi ) and it is defined as
update the best and worst values. 8 min
Step 3: Evaluate mass of each particle using (22) and calculate >
> 1 fi 6 fi
<
the total force on each particle using (24). f max f i min max
lpi ¼ i
fi 6 fi 6 fi ð28Þ
Step 4: Update particle’s velocity and positions. The modified >
> f max f min
: i i
max
velocity equation of PSO is as follows. Finally, the positions of all 0 fi P fi
particles are updated by using (26).
max min
where f i and f i are the maximum and minimum objective val-
mi ðt þ 1Þ ¼ w  mi ðtÞ þ C 01  randðÞ  ðF i ðtÞ=mi ðtÞÞ ues of ith objective function, respectively. The normalized member-
þ C 02  randðÞ  ðgbest  xi ðtÞÞ ð27Þ ship function of each particle is calculated as
N P
Step 5: Check for maximum iterations count. If yes print the lpi
final results otherwise go to step 2.The general steps involved in
lp ¼ PD i¼1
PN ð29Þ
k¼1 i¼1 lpi
finding the optimum values of generations to solve MO-SCOPF
problem using the proposed method is shown in Fig. 3. The where D represents the number of non-dominated solutions and N
multi-objective problem solves different conflicting objectives is the number of objective functions. The maximum value of lp
simultaneously to find the set of optimal solutions rather than sin- gives the best compromising solution among the total Pareto opti-
gle solution. This paper uses non-dominated sorting and crowding mal points.

start

Read System data like line parameters, bus data Generate new population using modified PSO
and generator data velocity equation

Initialize PSO and APO control parameters Evaluate objective functions with respective to
the new population and combines with old
population

Randomly generate initial population with in the

given search space
Sort population based on non-dominated and
crowding distance approach

Evaluate the objective functions for initial

population and rank them according to crowding
distance approach Select non dominated set with best rank

Set iter=1 No

Iter=iter_max

Calculate the mass and forces exerted on each

Yes
particle using APO algorithm

Return best values

End

Iter=iter+1

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed HPSO-APO algorithm to solve MO-SCOPF problem.

416 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

5. Simulation results and discussions
To validate the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed
hybrid PSO-APO algorithm for solving MO-SCOPF problem, stan-
dard IEEE 30-bus and practical Indian 75-bus test systems are to
be considered. The test results are compared with individual stan-
dard PSO and APO methods. The proposed algorithm is coded in
MATLAB environment and all simulations were carried out on
Intel, 2.40 GHz and core i5-4210U with 4 GB personal computer.
For each test case, 20 independent trail runs are performed to val-
idate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Before HPSO-
APO method is applied, following control parameters need to be
chosen effectively. For PSO, acceleration constants, C1 = C2 = 2
and w = 1 to be considered. For APO, gravitational constant (G)
adopted is 0.01. In order to get fair comparison between proposed
and standard PSO and APO algorithms in terms of reaching best
value, the population size (NP = 50) and number of iterations (iter
Max. = 100) are taken same for three optimization methods. The
simulation results of MO-SCOPF with base and contingency cases
are discussed in the subsequent sections.
5.1. IEEE 30-bus system
The generator cost coefficients with their limits, line data and
bus data are taken from [32,36]. The total wind farm of capacity
40 MW is connected at bus no 22, which is arbitrarily considered.
In this paper, wind generator is modeled as PV bus with unity
power factor for load flow studies. Throughout the simulation,
total load demand of the system is assumed to be constant. The
total electrical energy demand of the system is 283.4 MW. For a
particular time horizon, the Weibull distribution factors are taken
as scale factor (c) = 5.92 and shape factor (k) = 1.12. According to
these factors the scheduled wind power generation is taken as
12 MW. The following parameters to be consider for a wind gener-
ator. They are, cut-in speed (v in ) = 3 m/s, cut-out speed (v o ) = 25 m/
s and rated output speed (v r ) = 10.28 m/s.
In order to test the robustness of the proposed algorithm, we
made a comparison of the proposed optimization method with
other existing optimization methods presented in the literature.
Here, we considered fuel cost of thermal generators as an objective
function. The comparison of minimum fuel cost obtained by the
proposed hybrid algorithm along with existing algorithms has
been presented in Table 1. From the results, the minimum fuel cost
obtained by the proposed method is 801.708 $/h, which is better
than standard individual PSO and APO algorithms as well as previ-
ously reported methods. The convergence characteristics of the
proposed hybrid method, standard PSO and APO methods are
shown in Fig. 4. The results reveal that PSO algorithm stuck at local
optimum value but exhibits faster convergence characteristic,
whereas the APO method reaches the near optimal solution

Table 1
Comparison of fuel cost obtained by proposed hybrid algorithm and other reported algorithms.

Methods Generation outputs in MW Fuel cost ($/h)

PG1 PG2 PG3 PG4 PG5 PG6
NLP [4] 176.26 48.84 21.51 22.15 12.14 12.00 802.400
SA [5] 192.51 48.40 19.55 11.62 10.00 12.00 804.107
Hybrid TS/SA [18] 192.62 48.42 19.56 11.67 10.00 12.00 804.784
EP [10] 173.85 50.00 21.39 22.63 12.93 12.00 802.620
IEP[11] 176.24 49.01 21.50 21.81 12.34 12.01 802.465
DE [9] 176.01 48.80 21.33 22.26 12.46 12.00 802.394
MDE [9] 175.97 48.88 21.51 22.24 12.25 12.00 802.376
GA [6] 170.10 53.90 20.60 18.80 12.00 17.70 805.940
EGA[7] 176.20 48.75 21.44 21.95 12.42 12.02 802.060
FGA [8] 175.14 50.35 21.45 21.18 12.67 12.11 802.000
ACO[13] 181.95 47.00 20.55 21.15 10.43 12.17 802.578
MSFLA [15] 179.19 48.98 20.45 20.92 11.59 11.95 802.287
HBMO[14] 178.46 46.27 21.46 21.45 13.21 12.01 802.211
MHBMO [14] 177.04 49.21 21.51 22.65 10.41 12.00 801.985
PSO 179.39 48.49 19.88 20.73 12.73 12.00 802.835
APO 177.60 48.83 21.40 18.33 14.50 12.15 801.889
Proposed Hybrid PSO-APO 182.21 47.59 22.60 18.70 10.00 12.00 801.708

807

PSO
806
APO
HPSO-APO
805
Fuel Cost ($/h)

804

803

802

801
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Iterations

Fig. 4. IEEE 30-bus system: Convergence plot for proposed HPSO-APO, PSO and APO methods.
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 417

7.5 HPSO-APO
APO
7 PSO

Los s (MW )
6.5

5.5

4.5
670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 5. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 1 (base case).

Table 2
IEEE 30-bus system: Contingency Ranking. HPSO-APO and standard PSO, APO algorithms. The optimal values
of active power generations with best optimal objectives and com-
Line outage (between buses) Performance Index Rank
promise solution (comp. sol) for the base case are tabulated in
6–8 497.30 1 Table 3. This table gives the comparison of optimal values for total
6–28 230.20 2
28–27 131.21 3
production cost and active power losses, and their compromising
10–21 82.58 4 solutions by the proposed and standard methods. Fig. 5 shows
4–12 62.73 5 the Pareto optimal fronts obtained by the implementation of
HPSO-APO, PSO and APO methods to the base case of MO-SCOPF
problem. It is clear that the proposed HPSO-APO approach gives
(minimum fitness value) but prone to premature convergence. The the well distributed Pareto front than other two reported standard
proposed hybrid optimization method superior and robust com- methods.
pared to APO and PSO algorithms in terms of getting near global The contingency ranking has been done based on the perfor-
optimum point and faster convergence. mance index, which is determined by Newton- Raphson load flow
The proposed HPAO-APO algorithm is tested for base case as (NRLF) method. Only the line outages are considered in this work.
well as (N-1) contingency cases with simultaneously considering The thermal and voltage limits are considered as 120% and ±5% of
different objective functions and its performance is compared with the base case values respectively. The top five severe contingencies
the standard PSO and APO algorithms. To verify the effectiveness of are tabulated in Table 2 in descending order. In this paper, only a
the proposed algorithm of solving MO- SCOPF, three different case top severe contingency case is presented in detail. After security
studies are considered as follows. assessment, it is noticed that the outage of line connected between
the buses 6–8 causes severe contingency condition in the network
case 1. Case 1: Minimization of total production cost (TPC) and [32]. The proposed HPSO-APO algorithm is implemented to solve
active power losses simultaneously MO-SCOPF problem for taking preventive control actions like gen-
case 2. Case 2: Minimization of total production cost (TPC) and erator rescheduling to regain the system’s normal state with satis-
security index (SI) simultaneously fying both equality and inequality constraints. The optimal active
case 3. Case 3: Minimization of total production cost (TPC), power generations along with the best objective and compromis-
security index (SI) and active power losses ing solution vectors by the proposed and other reported methods
simultaneously are shown in Table 4. Fig. 6 shows the Pareto optimal front
obtained by the proposed HPSO-APO, PSO and APO methods. It is
5.1.1. Case 1: Minimization of total production cost and active power revealed that the proposed method gives better diverse Pareto
losses simultaneously optimal solutions than the other reported methods. The CPU time
In this case, the conflicting objectives like total production cost taken for completion of 100 iterations of each algorithm is
and active power losses were considered for the MO-SCOPF prob- listed in Table 5. Hence, the proposed HPSO-APO method can solve
lem. This objective function was solved by the proposed MO- SCOPF problem effectively with consideration of both wind

Table 3
Base case: Minimization of total production cost and active power losses (Case 1).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. soln
1 136.09 59.59 79.33 142.51 73.32 85.74 145.08 65.72 89.56
2 38.70 53.03 63.61 23.82 71.60 62.71 40.63 64.48 48.44
5 28.09 48.60 28.55 24.81 47.22 39.65 18.70 36.98 31.62
8 16.03 24.90 29.66 17.46 21.55 27.77 18.03 31.08 31.50
11 14.56 26.17 16.51 13.95 15.70 13.93 13.13 23.73 18.01
13 17.03 39.57 30.91 28.24 27.52 19.37 15.73 35.75 29.43
22(wind) 39.99 35.44 40.00 39.84 31.10 39.22 40.00 30.05 40.00
Total production cost ($/h) 675.54 811.32 721.83 687.75 797.83 727.43 669.30 790.27 713.11
Losses (MW) 7.08 3.89 5.17 7.22 4.50 5.01 7.90 4.39 5.16
418 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

Table 4
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost and losses (case 1).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol
1 147.96 87.43 88.23 131.09 59.62 97.59 138.33 74.23 96.45
2 31.56 42.10 52.05 35.57 75.32 38.70 37.80 49.12 43.12
5 16.02 47.99 18.64 29.69 47.36 45.18 19.66 43.56 33.06
8 14.37 26.19 30.58 15.24 27.19 32.72 24.56 29.30 31.80
11 27.26 25.21 28.33 23.35 27.14 21.24 12.00 28.10 22.10
13 14.50 38.34 35.03 19.13 24.51 17.66 18.46 30.48 22.08
22(wind) 39.98 20.01 36.04 36.18 26.26 35.01 40.00 32.82 40.00
Total production cost ($/h) 681.27 886.77 733.68 698.57 835.38 749.81 673.02 781.57 707.12
Losses (MW) 8.24 3.88 5.55 6.86 4.07 4.76 7.42 4.20 5.21

8.5

8 Hybrid PSO-APO
APO
7.5 PSO

7
Loss (MW)

6.5

5.5

4.5

4
680 700 720 740 760 780 800
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 6. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 1 (contingency case).

Table 5 (comp. sol) vectors for the base case is shown in Table 6. After
Comparison of CPU times for case 1. security enhancement, the compromising solution vectors
Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO obtained by using the proposed and other reported methods are
CPU time (s) 33.24 30.62 30.26
listed in Table 7. The optimal trade-off curves obtained for base
case as well as contingency case by using the proposed HPSO-
APO, PSO and APO methods are shown in Figs. 7and 8. These
graphs show that the proposed method gives well diverse Pareto
and thermal generators and also minimize the fuel consumption
optimal solutions than PSO and APO methods. The CPU time taken
and shorten carbon emission impact on environment.
for completion of 100 iterations for each algorithm is listed in
Table 8.
5.1.2. Case 2: Minimization of total production cost and security index
(SI) simultaneously
In this case, total production cost and security index were con- 5.1.3. Case 3: Minimization of total production cost, security index (SI)
sidered as the multi objective function for SCOPF problem. The pro- and active power losses simultaneously
posed HPSO-APO, standard PSO and APO algorithms have been In the present case, all three conflicting objectives were opti-
implemented for the MO-SCOPF problem. The active power gener- mized simultaneously by using the proposed HPSO-APO and other
ations along with optimal objective and compromise solution reported methods. The best compromising solution vectors for

Table 6
Base case: Minimization of total production cost and security index (Case 2).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol
1 134.87 109.49 98.56 113.96 108.00 110.35 134.05 71.31 112.40
2 22.97 23.19 43.60 51.11 43.21 40.25 47.64 69.03 61.37
5 32.70 48.64 38.54 21.82 44.76 32.86 25.99 43.26 25.85
8 33.68 34.91 31.08 24.42 33.67 31.83 14.35 32.20 29.18
11 11.92 24.57 15.92 21.97 21.23 19.55 16.97 29.77 12.48
13 13.62 25.04 28.84 17.61 20.19 25.08 12.00 22.58 21.71
22(wind) 39.65 21.86 32.06 38.51 16.44 27.68 40.00 19.64 25.89
Total production cost ($/h) 693.18 816.09 745.57 688.69 806.62 741.63 672.02 832.33 736.66
Security Index 1.22 0.62 0.75 1.16 0.55 0.72 1.57 0.56 0.70
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 419

Table 7
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost and security index (Case 2).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol
1 126.23 96.70 123.21 128.33 94.91 92.73 140.93 94.58 109.24
2 22.60 47.77 46.40 23.34 59.39 63.05 36.86 79.17 51.24
5 18.09 47.70 22.71 25.13 33.06 32.06 19.19 39.47 27.32
8 33.80 32.64 32.69 32.57 32.97 29.11 21.57 31.63 31.68
11 30.00 13.73 25.67 14.65 25.05 15.03 10.00 13.22 14.83
13 19.38 20.56 16.09 27.49 33.08 27.65 21.35 12.92 22.51
22(wind) 39.98 28.69 22.03 38.39 9.83 28.26 40.00 16.50 33.07
Total production cost ($/h) 699.57 777.02 744.79 699.46 825.59 751.70 673.60 810.80 713.58
Security Index 1.41 0.62 0.76 1.13 0.65 0.70 1.53 0.58 0.82

1.8

1.6
APO
PSO
1.4 Hybrid PSO-APO
Security Index

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 7. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 2 (base case).

1.4

1.3 PSO
APO
1.2 dHybridPSO-APO

1.1
Security Index

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 8. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 2 (contingency case).

Table 8 ods. The CPU time taken for completion of 100 iterations for each
Comparison of CPU times for case 2. algorithm is listed in Table 11.
Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO
CPU time (s) 33.34 31.11 30.22
5.2. Indian 75-bus system

The proposed HPSO-APO algorithm is analyzed for base case as

base and contingency cases are listed in Tables 9 and 10. The trade-
off curves obtained for both cases by the proposed HPSO-APO, PSO
and APO methods are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. It is clear that the
proposed HPSO-APO method gives better Pareto optimal solutions
with well-distributing trade-off curve than the PSO and APO meth-
well as (N1) contingency cases with simultaneously considering
different objective functions and its performance is compared with
the standard PSO and APO algorithms. The generator cost
coefficients with their limits, line data, and bus data are taken from
[37]. The total wind farm of capacity 400 MW is penetrated at bus
no 42, which is arbitrarily considered. The total electrical energy
420 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

Table 9
Base case: Minimization of total production cost, losses and security index (Case 3).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol
1 135.24 108.59 79.96 66.93 146.50 88.62 83.00 94.01 157.58 90.96 83.51 79.69
2 38.56 55.41 46.89 66.95 38.13 58.81 47.81 56.47 30.93 74.58 29.20 63.61
5 24.29 36.08 44.70 41.20 32.67 47.66 43.45 45.94 16.99 46.23 41.67 34.67
8 10.00 28.45 28.30 26.80 11.99 23.25 31.41 22.68 21.69 25.10 27.54 22.54
11 29.95 20.84 24.76 22.88 12.72 22.02 27.53 21.68 13.73 14.12 28.21 24.21
13 12.69 25.01 26.17 25.72 16.60 28.35 37.51 26.20 18.41 19.43 39.40 33.80
22(wind) 39.99 14.58 37.17 37.41 32.17 19.35 16.73 21.31 32.46 18.16 37.81 29.81
Total production cost ($/h) 682.31 794.05 789.86 763.02 705.19 824.26 875.04 805.19 698.96 823.41 820.33 770.76
Security Index 1.73 0.61 0.94 0.94 1.24 0.57 0.62 0.59 1.30 0.55 1.09 0.78
Losses (MW) 7.26 5.59 4.13 4.45 7.38 4.65 4.03 4.84 8.29 5.09 3.95 4.87

Table 10
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost, losses and security index (Case 3).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol
1 172.03 109.21 76.17 83.55 131.61 73.59 83.16 80.56 144.20 103.27 85.17 95.32
2 26.17 41.28 61.47 62.13 56.49 76.34 50.05 69.40 36.72 53.23 31.68 47.23
5 15.00 47.61 48.91 33.29 23.12 48.17 43.13 44.70 17.22 46.41 50.00 39.50
8 10.00 34.35 22.27 31.51 19.71 34.20 25.00 31.72 17.75 33.30 18.30 35.00
11 17.45 17.13 18.68 16.06 10.11 10.04 27.55 11.82 20.63 11.85 23.85 13.85
13 17.28 25.03 29.97 26.56 22.75 23.11 21.25 25.43 14.92 21.65 38.45 18.85
22(wind) 35.08 13.88 30.41 35.33 26.92 22.38 37.62 24.42 40.00 18.76 40.00 38.76
Total production cost ($/h) 697.48 826.31 800.72 735.64 721.88 833.52 781.34 806.17 704.21 804.50 832.31 719.85
Security Index 2.98 0.55 0.87 0.82 1.22 0.49 1.11 0.55 1.90 0.53 1.43 0.92
Losses (MW) 9.61 4.99 4.39 4.97 7.31 4.41 4.33 4.58 7.97 5.03 3.97 5.00

9 Hybrid PSO-APO
PSO
8 APO
Loss (MW)

5
2
4
1.5
3 1
660 680 700 Security Index
720 740 760 780 800 820 0.5
840 860
Total fuel cost ($/h)

Fig. 9. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 3 (base case).

demand of the system is 5568.12 MW. The multi-objective security
constrained based OPF is solved by the proposed and other
reported methods as outlined in the following subsections.
To validate the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed
hybrid PSO-APO algorithm, first, we considered single objective
(fuel cost of thermal generators) as an objective function. The com-
parison of minimum fuel cost obtained by the proposed hybrid
algorithm along with existing PSO and APO algorithms has been
reported in Table 12. From the results, the minimum fuel cost
obtained by the proposed method is 8826.04 $/h, which is better
than standard individual PSO and APO algorithms. The conver-
gence characteristics are shown in Fig. 11. The results reveal that
PSO algorithm stuck at local optimum value but exhibits faster
convergence characteristic, whereas the APO method reaches the
near optimal solution (minimum fitness value) but prone to pre-
mature convergence. The proposed hybrid optimization method
superior and robust compared to APO and PSO algorithms in terms
of getting near global optimum point and faster convergence.
5.2.1. Case 1: Minimization of total production cost and active power
losses simultaneously
The proposed HPSO-APO method is employed to solve MO-
SCOPF problem for base case as well as (N-1) contingency cases.
The contingency ranking has been done based on the performance
index, which is determined by NRLF method. The top five severe
contingencies are listed in Table 13. After the security assessment,
it is noticed that outage of the line connected to the buses 16–46
causes severe contingency in the network [32]. The optimal real
power generator settings obtained by the proposed HPSO-APO
for considering two different objective functions i.e., total produc-
tion cost and active power losses of both base and contingency
cases are listed in Tables 14 and 15. The results are compared with
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 421

10

Loss (MW) 5 APO

PSO
HybridPSO-APO
0
650

700
3
750 2.5
2
800 1.5
1
0.5
Total production cost ($/h) 850 0
Security Index

Fig. 10. IEEE 30-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 3 (contingency case).

Table 11 Table 13
Comparison of CPU times for case 3. Indian 75-bus system: Contingency Ranking.

Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO Line outage (between buses) Performance Index Rank
CPU time (s) 34.34 33.02 32.38 16–46 17.36 1
22–25 10.80 2
16–50 5.39 3
Table 12
Comparison of fuel cost obtained by proposed hybrid algorithm and other reported 29–30 5.16 4
algorithms. 35–36 4.97 5

Generator bus number Generation outputs in MW

PSO APO Proposed HPSO-APO individual standard PSO and APO algorithms. The two-dimensional
G1 100.00 128.85 100.00 trade-off curves obtained by the proposed and other reported algo-
G2 277.75 347.90 360.00 rithms are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. From the graphs, it is observed
G3 254.35 280.00 280.00
that the proposed HPSO-APO method is robust and efficient than
G4 200.00 178.71 200.00
G5 268.92 230.70 273.94 standard PSO and APO methods in terms of getting diverse optimal
G6 143.04 116.01 132.21 Pareto front solutions. The CPU time taken for completion of 100
G7 100.00 159.76 146.19 iterations for each algorithm is listed in Table 16.
G8 146.58 177.54 180.00
G9 650.00 644.59 397.58
G10 173.81 119.83 180.00 5.2.2. Case 2: Minimization of total production cost and security index
G11 184.25 206.66 209.00 (SI) simultaneously
G12 1429.24 1409.32 1462.68
The control variable settings for a base case using HPSO-APO,
G13 1000.00 993.96 1000.00
G14 245.70 193.69 250.00 PSO and APO methods are shown in Table 17. It shows the optimal
G15 554.00 545.94 554.00 active power generations with best objective values and compro-
Fuel cost ($/h) 8871.29 8901.26 8826.04 mise solution (comp. soln) vectors for each optimization method.

11000

PSO
APO
10500
HPSO-APO
Fuel Cost ($/h)

10000

9500

9000

8500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Iterations

Fig. 11. IEEE 30-bus system: Convergence plot for proposed HPSO-APO, PSO and APO methods.
422 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

Table 14
Base case: Minimization of total production cost and active power losses (Case 1).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol
1 743.62 160.95 228.56 183.48 429.81 225.72 100.00 333.80 155.48
2 207.14 270.35 300.03 294.48 272.67 292.49 100.00 360.00 210.38
3 241.82 100.68 244.57 272.66 262.53 225.47 166.27 273.29 256.27
4 166.02 200.00 183.19 179.63 159.49 175.68 199.63 111.41 149.63
5 164.30 129.05 196.00 177.64 158.13 197.26 187.05 157.00 205.05
6 117.67 172.99 120.27 100.82 174.42 168.65 124.21 211.25 136.21
7 108.52 102.94 147.11 117.92 121.12 117.10 144.57 160.00 138.57
8 120.29 101.27 136.24 158.32 132.03 154.36 144.49 139.74 152.49
9 547.58 393.49 562.36 465.14 586.49 540.19 504.40 476.24 624.40
10 174.27 100.00 159.54 147.31 132.49 155.30 100.00 180.00 125.62
11 205.08 175.40 179.95 173.21 173.14 173.66 140.00 144.00 140.00
12 1336.50 1794.61 1526.56 1702.60 1300.57 1577.32 1890.13 1717.43 1607.59
13 641.50 889.87 729.70 736.24 749.94 752.83 823.54 568.91 773.54
14 229.65 171.47 216.81 206.89 208.00 207.66 172.02 249.37 235.00
15 509.82 554.00 424.99 461.07 519.36 466.15 554.00 546.11 554.00
42(wind) 262.50 400.00 386.26 366.85 357.22 312.50 400.00 104.85 274.06
Total production cost ($/h) 7939.76 12011.52 8270.76 8117.17 9240.39 8366.61 7923.23 9230.41 8336.42
Losses (MW) 188.46 168.74 173.95 176.14 169.30 173.06 182.18 165.28 170.16

Table 15
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost and active power losses (Case 1).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. loss Comp. sol
1 131.02 490.66 195.83 271.39 458.45 298.98 146.96 596.36 221.86
2 266.78 243.02 207.55 216.36 244.41 202.17 100.00 100.00 291.16
3 236.22 183.28 260.92 205.73 172.82 239.68 242.53 242.53 260.53
4 123.38 152.22 179.05 188.45 143.59 174.78 156.80 176.80 166.80
5 255.02 273.24 204.99 147.84 237.70 217.29 280.00 280.00 280.00
6 122.71 200.57 189.46 130.19 130.89 155.51 208.00 208.00 179.84
7 136.56 155.61 115.05 143.41 146.09 139.18 151.91 127.91 157.91
8 108.80 173.11 147.53 111.84 166.09 135.32 116.00 122.62 100.00
9 420.87 439.17 541.36 380.39 528.88 576.33 561.08 561.08 361.53
10 114.26 180.00 121.52 176.12 173.22 158.03 100.00 138.98 114.98
11 146.48 141.93 189.49 156.50 172.30 192.82 205.01 175.91 209.00
12 1838.50 1653.47 1644.63 1700.96 1438.71 1477.34 1672.86 1271.74 1499.70
13 830.16 620.37 794.91 838.97 842.24 827.32 675.13 675.13 820.96
14 116.79 216.78 166.79 206.40 205.37 208.72 202.93 142.93 217.93
15 544.44 403.72 533.16 518.20 530.11 475.48 554.00 548.70 554.00
42(wind) 268.96 215.92 254.27 351.74 152.19 265.82 370.00 370.00 303.36
Total production cost ($/h) 8199.62 9805.16 8408.70 8308.56 9716.15 8730.66 8184.17 10473.40 8387.43
Losses (MW) 191.92 173.98 177.70 182.19 174.47 175.84 174.55 169.79 171.22

190

185 HPSO-APO
APO
PSO

180
Loss (MW)

175

170

165
7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400

Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 12. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 1 (base case).
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 423

195

HPSO-APO
PSO
190 APO

185

Loss (MW)
180

175

170
7600 7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 13. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 1 (contingency case).

Table 16 After security enhancement, the compromising solution vectors

Comparison of CPU times for case 1.
obtained by using the proposed and other reported methods are
Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO listed in Table 18. The Pareto optimal solutions obtained for the
CPU time (s) 298.63 272.36 259.45 base case as well as contingency case by HPSO-APO, PSO and

Table 17
Base case: Minimization of total production cost and security index (Case 2).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. soln
1 165.71 619.61 316.12 183.69 547.24 291.93 100.00 468.89 180.88
2 191.03 322.97 262.32 245.86 150.39 289.16 256.00 228.55 291.81
3 256.69 260.79 253.64 160.08 245.03 161.21 280.00 237.98 270.71
4 116.14 145.31 112.48 153.92 157.83 167.66 100.00 149.54 147.50
5 152.72 214.68 248.04 199.99 198.24 226.30 131.93 260.41 177.68
6 113.14 122.82 184.80 168.29 158.30 152.82 172.00 131.61 204.98
7 148.72 115.82 147.48 124.11 134.31 116.31 154.00 103.11 154.00
8 157.32 142.67 161.01 165.03 138.83 164.10 159.12 116.16 105.09
9 425.39 385.70 488.64 333.86 522.03 411.56 330.00 396.07 563.31
10 105.67 111.04 176.63 168.62 123.07 167.02 132.00 178.00 111.81
11 171.31 160.04 166.89 143.53 145.65 160.38 167.60 171.48 182.40
12 1816.05 1613.50 1628.15 1769.72 1320.65 1637.27 1839.80 1413.72 1702.21
13 889.08 746.01 712.61 706.22 832.75 713.27 783.03 993.37 578.10
14 217.00 219.59 171.13 234.02 243.46 231.51 127.03 236.21 150.43
15 393.56 371.54 420.40 520.15 524.95 530.82 520.60 509.08 527.20
42(wind) 323.59 184.03 287.78 316.01 293.40 316.79 400.00 148.94 400.00
Total production cost ($/h) 8125.64 10788.19 8714.37 8161.98 10081.95 8493.70 7929.59 9767.30 8169.61
Security Index 13.83 8.57 9.07 11.14 7.81 8.83 13.96 8.15 10.15

Table 18
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost and security index (Case 2).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Comp. sol
1 119.74 421.33 301.49 201.41 364.63 214.68 142.23 597.23 308.29
2 280.20 279.83 238.23 142.78 218.78 280.09 211.08 234.84 238.91
3 180.72 253.73 224.93 202.62 261.61 183.29 194.50 239.38 224.50
4 185.17 171.37 179.89 169.99 121.97 116.32 135.28 149.16 131.08
5 280.00 226.94 254.49 153.17 174.03 168.51 224.41 207.64 237.49
6 218.59 145.94 162.66 150.81 138.18 164.59 154.27 177.91 157.26
7 100.00 137.02 128.74 114.25 153.07 144.30 115.47 125.03 130.74
8 110.96 158.22 147.02 134.55 145.04 169.12 133.38 132.07 143.70
9 314.85 392.56 368.56 566.22 443.98 454.08 454.99 445.44 455.93
10 180.00 114.75 127.55 113.52 169.05 136.24 114.72 134.63 130.72
11 140.00 192.60 182.12 156.50 144.10 200.18 176.41 191.92 178.73
12 1859.32 1757.78 1879.90 1413.47 1481.61 1695.31 1722.25 1401.77 1607.86
13 587.77 592.81 612.81 940.14 943.02 884.23 873.52 725.29 775.85
14 239.20 226.61 242.60 132.66 242.66 185.79 192.46 185.32 163.70
15 496.49 522.44 481.95 429.23 516.09 487.23 528.15 469.15 461.35
42(wind) 361.02 145.18 193.18 371.79 221.30 262.14 400.00 322.33 400.00
Total production cost ($/h) 8142.26 9467.78 8792.34 8174.84 9039.18 8369.90 7951.64 10396.64 8409.83
Security Index 17.67 9.27 10.03 14.44 8.85 10.58 11.96 8.75 10.01
424 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426

14

13 HPSO-APO
APO
PSO

12

Security Index
11

10

8
8000 8100 8200 8300 8400 8500 8600 8700 8800 8900 9000
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 14. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 2 (base case).

15

PSO
14 HPSO-APO
APO

13
Security Index

12

11

10

8
7500 7700 7900 8100 8300 8500 8700 8900 9100 9300 9500
Total production cost ($/h)

Fig. 15. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 2 (contingency case).

HPSO-APO is more efficient and robust method than standard

Table 19
Comparison of CPU times for case 2.
PSO and APO methods in terms to get the diverse optimal Pareto
front solutions with integration of wind energy to the thermal gen-
Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO
erators and also minimize the fuel consumption and carbon emis-
CPU time (s) 296.34 269.59 253.34 sion impact on environment.

APO are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. These graphs show that the best
Pareto optimal front is obtained through the proposed approach.
The CPU time taken for completion of 100 iterations for each algo-
rithm is listed in Table 19.
5.2.3. Case 3: Minimization of total production cost, security index (SI)
and active power losses simultaneously
The best compromising solution vectors obtained by using the
proposed algorithm along with PSO and APO methods for both
base and contingency cases are tabulated in Tables 20 and 21.
Three conflicting objectives were optimized simultaneously by
using the proposed HPSO-APO method, PSO and APO methods.
For both the cases, the Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the
proposed hybrid, PSO and APO methods are shown in Figs. 16
and 17. The CPU time taken for completion of 100 iterations for
each algorithm is listed in Table 22. It is clear that the proposed
6. Conclusions
In this paper, three different conflicting objective functions viz.
total production cost, active power losses and security index were
considered for MO-SCOPF problem. The three multi-objective func-
tions have been solved simultaneously using the proposed HPSO-
APO, PSO and APO methods. Non-dominated sorting and crowding
distance approach is used to maintain a diverse in Pareto optimal
points. Finally, a fuzzy membership approach is used to get com-
promising solution over the trade-off curve. The proposed opti-
mization algorithm integrates strength of the both the algorithms
to get a balance between exploration and exploitation. The validity
of the proposed algorithm is demonstrated on IEEE 30-bus and
practical Indian 75-bus systems. The test results show the pro-
posed HPSO-APO method gives well distributed Pareto optimal
solutions than standard PSO and APO methods for MO-SCOPF
problem of base and contingency cases with different objectives.
 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426 425

Table 20
Base case: Minimization of total production cost, losses and security index (Case 3).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol
1 124.4 818.7 220.8 250.7 146.9 703.1 597.0 421.5 100.0 504.8 519.9 355.0
2 280.3 190.4 317.2 306.8 129.4 198.1 228.9 236.3 221.1 291.6 311.3 239.6
3 101.0 191.9 200.8 208.0 259.2 259.2 250.1 233.6 165.5 256.5 233.9 280.0
4 144.3 123.7 190.4 186.4 167.8 150.1 192.8 164.0 179.9 129.1 200.0 149.1
5 189.5 185.2 267.1 259.9 212.8 203.6 214.8 242.9 233.5 214.4 280.0 214.4
6 219.5 146.3 101.7 106.5 193.7 196.8 130.2 188.0 127.1 170.8 154.9 146.8
7 103.7 135.7 148.4 146.0 125.2 133.2 155.3 146.5 115.7 143.6 121.5 131.6
8 102.6 143.4 180.0 177.4 109.6 157.8 176.7 118.5 139.2 180.0 113.3 172.0
9 418.1 262.9 355.7 371.7 471.6 502.8 588.8 324.7 543.7 469.1 610.3 549.1
10 110.0 134.8 167.1 163.9 155.3 141.9 156.8 109.5 135.8 135.1 167.1 135.1
11 162.1 166.0 180.7 177.9 187.4 175.0 192.8 154.2 148.1 156.0 209.0 156.0
12 1833.6 1412.4 1871.1 1805.0 1828.9 1244.8 1289.1 1620.7 1681.5 1369.3 1191.6 1396.0
13 1000.0 938.0 659.5 679.5 726.2 729.2 782.6 763.6 938.1 621.8 731.5 721.8
14 161.2 230.9 163.7 169.7 156.5 225.4 111.3 202.5 248.4 242.3 211.6 250.0
15 272.9 538.4 515.2 501.9 387.8 365.6 525.8 453.3 400.8 466.6 514.2 466.6
42(wind) 400.0 129.4 198.8 186.8 386.8 353.3 148.1 358.2 377.8 383.1 157.2 370.0
Total production cost ($/h) 8032.1 12976.5 8529.8 8619.9 8045.1 11440.9 10863.8 8994.8 8026.6 9640.4 10332 8789
Security Index 21.7 8.1 10.6 10.2 13.9 7.9 9.0 9.1 13.4 7.4 9.1 7.8
Losses (MW) 225.1 180.5 170.8 170.9 183.5 169.0 167.5 171.2 192.6 164.6 161.9 165.9

Table 21
Contingency case: Minimization of total production cost, losses and security index (Case 3).

Generator bus no. MOAPO MOPSO Proposed MOHPSO-APO

Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol Min. TPC Min. SI Min. loss Comp. sol
1 100.0 587.0 615.4 312.0 166.1 677.2 745.9 366.5 388.4 741.9 648.7 209.2
2 215.7 306.1 256.3 171.8 260.2 214.3 349.1 200.8 182.6 222.9 299.9 268.0
3 265.9 245.9 211.5 206.3 254.9 251.1 156.3 192.6 130.8 146.6 112.7 272.7
4 100.0 133.2 123.9 171.2 195.6 130.1 182.7 189.5 117.7 148.4 197.3 173.9
5 182.2 217.5 208.9 220.7 139.0 224.3 252.1 251.6 139.9 231.4 149.6 236.6
6 171.7 204.4 197.6 148.4 164.3 183.8 108.6 154.3 154.7 134.0 202.5 147.2
7 114.6 129.2 144.1 105.9 133.6 139.8 157.6 142.6 129.0 117.8 141.1 124.1
8 139.2 100.4 125.2 110.6 176.6 113.5 112.4 160.4 107.4 117.8 141.1 148.2
9 530.6 637.6 506.8 529.0 391.4 298.7 288.5 470.4 507.2 267.4 259.2 407.6
10 177.8 177.7 167.9 115.5 117.9 129.7 176.3 130.2 104.9 178.0 108.2 143.2
11 174.4 151.0 193.9 168.6 169.9 167.4 186.5 197.9 184.4 172.0 142.4 163.8
12 1790.2 793.3 1261.1 1730.1 1880.7 1329.1 1151.2 1703.9 1733.2 1544.1 1328.9 1771.9
13 974.7 887.5 574.8 695.1 622.3 849.7 766.1 700.6 746.6 755.3 838.0 766.5
14 129.2 247.9 215.7 240.6 148.9 197.3 224.6 194.9 175.7 215.1 220.4 172.5
15 330.7 520.4 544.0 421.3 303.9 497.3 535.0 434.5 491.7 460.0 554.0 501.3
42(wind) 365.2 395.8 378.9 341.0 379.9 336.6 342.2 205.3 378.8 242.4 356.2 189.5
Total production cost ($/h) 8098.6 10582.2 10668.9 8971.3 8211.8 11077.7 11902.8 9036.2 8113.6 11822 10757 8483.9
Security Index 15.1 7.7 8.0 11.6 15.5 7.9 8.8 9.8 15.5 8.6 9.3 9.9
Losses (MW) 206.8 164.0 162.8 180.8 193.7 168.3 164.0 172.0 195.2 173.6 169.0 172.0

240 HPSO-APO
APO
220 PSO
Los s (MW )

200

180

160
8000
8500
9000
9500 22
20
10000 16 18
12 14
Total production cost ($/h) 10500 10
6 8

Security Index

Fig. 16. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 3 (base case).
426 K. Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 411–426
200
Loss (MW)
180
160
7500 8000 8500
9000 9500 10000
10500 11000
Total production cost ($/h)
Fig. 17. Indian 75-bus system: Pareto optimal fronts for case 3 (contingency case).
Table 22
Comparison of CPU times for case 3.
Algorithm MOPSO MOAPO Proposed MOHPSO-APO
CPU time (s) 304.34 282.65 266.52
Therefore, the proposed HPSO-APO method can be used for large
interconnected power system to solve multi-objective SCOPF prob-
lem with consideration of both wind and thermal generators and
also minimize the fuel consumption and shorten carbon emission
impact on environment. The work opens up some scope of future
work to formulate probabilistic OPF models with integration of
renewable energies.
References
[1] B. Stott, O. Alsac, A.J. Monticelli, Security analysis and optimization, Proc. IEEE
75 (12) (1987) 1623–1644.
[2] A. Monticelli, M.V.F. Pereira, S. Granville, Security-constrained optimal power
flow with post-contingency corrective rescheduling, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2
(1) (1987) 175–180.
[3] O. Alsac, J. Bright, M. Prais, B. Stott, Further developments in LP-based optimal
power flow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 5 (3) (1990) 697–711.
[4] O. Alsac, B. Stott, Optimal load flow with steady-state security, IEEE Trans.
Power Appar. Syst. PAS-93 (3) (1974) 745–751.
[5] C.A. Roa-Sepulveda, B.J. Pavez-Lazo, A solution to the optimal power flow using
simulated annealing, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 25 (1) (2003) 47–57.
[6] S.R. Paranjothi, K. Anburaja, Optimal power flow using refined genetic
algorithm, Electr. Power Components Syst. 30 (10) (2002) 1055–1063.
[7] A.G. Bakirtzis, P.N. Biskas, C.E. Zoumas, V. Petridis, Optimal power flow by
enhanced genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 17 (2) (May 2002) 229–
236.
[8] A. Saini, D.K. Chaturvedi, A.K. Saxena, Optimal power flow solution: a ga-fuzzy
system approach, Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst. 5 (2) (Jan. 2006).
[9] S. Sayah, K. Zehar, Modified differential evolution algorithm for optimal power
flow with non-smooth cost functions, Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (11) (2008)
3036–3042.
[10] J. Yuryevich, Kit Po. Wong, Evolutionary programming based optimal power
flow algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 14 (4) (1999) 1245–1250.
[11] W. Ongsakul, T. Tantimaporn, Optimal power flow by improved evolutionary
programming, Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 34 (1) (2006) 79–95.
[12] M.A. Abido, Optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization, Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 24 (7) (2002) 563–571.
[13] L. Slimani, T. Bouktir, Economic power dispatch of power systems with
pollution control using artificial bee colony optimization, Turkish J. Electr. Eng.
Comput. Sci. 21 (2) (2013) 1515–1527.
[14] T. Niknam, M.R. Narimani, J. Aghaei, S. Tabatabaei, M. Nayeripour, Modified
honey bee mating optimisation to solve dynamic optimal power flow
considering generator constraints, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 5 (10) (2011)
989.
[15] T. Niknam, M. Rasoul Narimani, M. Jabbari, A.R. Malekpour, A modified shuffle
frog leaping algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow, Energy 36 (11)
(2011) 6420–6432.
APO
HPSO-APO
PSO
18
16
14
12
10
8 Security Index
6
11500 12000
[16] T. Niknam, M.R. Narimani, R. Azizipanah-Abarghooee, A new hybrid algorithm
for optimal power flow considering prohibited zones and valve point effect,
Energy Convers. Manage. 58 (2012) 197–206.
[17] M. Balasubbareddy, S. Sivanagaraju, C.V. Suresh, Multi-objective optimization
in the presence of practical constraints using non-dominated sorting hybrid
cuckoo search algorithm, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 18 (4) (2015) 603–615.
[18] W. Ongsakul, P. Bhasaputra, Optimal power flow with FACTS devices by hybrid
TS/SA approach, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 24 (10) (2002) 851–857.
[19] T. Niknam, M.R. Narimani, M. Jabbari, Dynamic optimal power flow using
hybrid particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing, Int. Trans. Electr.
Energy Syst. 23 (7) (Oct. 2013) 975–1001.
[20] Y.-L. Chen, Weighted-norm approach for multiobjective VAr planning, IEEE
Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib. 145 (4) (1998) 369.
[21] T. Yalcinoz, O. Koksoy, A multiobjective optimization method to
environmental economic dispatch, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 29 (1)
(2007) 42–50.
[22] S. Sivasubramani, K.S.S. Swarup, Multi-objective harmony search algorithm for
optimal power flow problem, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33 (3) (2011)
745–752.
[23] K. Abaci, V. Yamacli, Differential search algorithm for solving multi-objective
optimal power flow problem, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 79 (2016) 1–10.
[24] N. Daryani, M.T. Hagh, S. Teimourzadeh, Adaptive group search optimization
algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow problem, Appl. Soft Comput.
38 (2016) 1012–1024.
[25] J. Zhang, Q. Tang, P. Li, D. Deng, Y. Chen, A modified MOEA/D approach to the
solution of multi-objective optimal power flow problem, Appl. Soft Comput. 47
(2016) 494–514.
[26] R.N. Banu, D. Devaraj, Multi-objective GA with fuzzy decision making for
security enhancement in power system, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 12 (9) (2012)
2756–2764.
[27] M. Nayeripour, M.R. Narimani, T. Niknam, Application of modified shuffled
frog leaping algorithm on optimal power flow incorporating unified power
flow controller, Int. J. Model. Optim. 2 (11) (2011) 191–198.
[28] T. Niknam, M.R. Narimani, E. Farjah, B.B. Firouzi, A new evolutionary
optimization algorithm for optimal power flow in a power system involving
unified power flow, Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. Part A Energy Sci. Res. 29 (2)
(2012) 901–912.
[29] C. Ye, M. Huang, Multi-objective optimal power flow considering transient
stability based on parallel NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 30 (2) (2015) 857–
866.
[30] H.R.E.H. Bouchekara, A.E. Chaib, M.A. Abido, Multiobjective optimal power
flow using a fuzzy based grenade explosion method, Energy Syst. (2016).
[31] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2) (2002) 182–197.
[32] Kiran Teeparthi, D.M. Vinod Kumar, Security-constrained optimal power flow
with wind and thermal power generators using fuzzy adaptive artificial
physics optimization algorithm, Neural Comput. Appl. (2016).
[33] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, in: IEEE Int. Conf. on Particle swarm optimization,
Perth, WA, vol. 4, 1995, pp. 1942–1948. no. 11.
[34] Liping Xie, Jianchao Zeng, Zhihua Cui, General framework of Artificial Physics
Optimization Algorithm, in: 2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically
Inspired Computing (NaBIC), 2009, pp. 1321–1326
[35] E.G. Talbi, A taxonomy of hybrid metaheuristics, J. Heuristics 8 (5) (2002) 541–
564.
[36] R.D. Zimmerman, C.E. Murillo-s, Matpower: a matlab power system simulation
package, 2005.
[37] I.J. Raglend, N.P. Padhy, Solutions to practical unit commitment problems with
operational, power flow and environmental constraints, IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
Gen. Meet. 247667 (2006) 1–8.