Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

A new hybrid evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimal power

flow in an integrated WE, PV, and PEV power system
Ravi Kumar Avvari *, Vinod Kumar D M
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Telangana, 506004, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes a novel hybrid multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) based on decomposition and
Optimal power flow invasive weed optimization (IWO) algorithm for the optimal power flow (OPF) problem in transmission net­
MOEA/D works. The conventional OPF is modified as a stochastic OPF with the integration of WE, PV, and PEV systems
multi-objective optimization
uncertainty. This paper proposes a new constraint-handling method (CHM) that adds the penalty adaptively and
invasive weed optimization
uncertainty
avoids parameter reliance on penalty computation. The selection features in the IWO method are deployed to
Analysis of variance improve the diversity of the proposed method. The OPF problem is represented as a multi-objective optimization
(MOO) problem using four objectives: generation cost, emission, power loss, and voltage variation. The gener­
ation costs of WE, PV, and PEV sources are evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations to mitigate the whole cost
and the influence of intermittency of these systems is investigated in terms of affordability and feasibility.
Weibull, lognormal, and normal probability distribution functions (PDFs) are employed to define the uncertainty
of WE, PV, and PEV sources respectively. The suggested method’s viability is evaluated on IEEE 57 and IEEE 118-
bus systems under all conceivable scenarios. In addition, one-way ANOVA test, a statistical approach, is used to
evaluate the superiority of the suggested algorithm.

accordingly
List of symbols and abbreviations ai , bi , ci ith generator cost constants
u and x control and state variable vectors respectively NTG ,NWG ,NSG andNPEV No. of thermal, WE, PV and PEV units
k, c shape, scale parameters accordingly respectively
vin ,vout ,vr cut-in, cut-out, and rated speeds accordingly αi , βi , γi , ξi , λi ith generator emission constants
Gstd typical PV irradiance Gij ,Bij conductance and susceptance between busesiandj
Rc particular irradiation point NB ,NC ,NPQ andNT No. of buses, shunt compensators, load buses, and
Gs solar irradiance transformers respectively
μandσ mean and SD of lognormal PDF Pmin ,P max
real power limits on ith generator
Gi Gi
μandφ mean and SD of a normal PDF
QGi ,QGi reactive power limits on ith generator
min max
Ppev is the available V2G power
S, Smax apparent power flow and its limits
Pwr , Psr ,Ppevr,n rated powers of WE, PV and PEV respectively
Tkmin ,Tkmax limits on kth transformer taps
Pws , Pss ,Ppevs projected outputs of WE, PV and PEV respectively
Vimin ,Vimax limits on ith bus voltages
gj , hk ,dn direct price components of jth WE, kth PV andnth PEV
θij voltage angle between busesiandj
respectively
PGi ,QGi active, reactive power generations atith bus
Pwav,j ,Psav,k ,Ppev,n actual available power outputs ofjth WE,kth PV,
PDi ,QDi active, reactive power demands atith bus
andnth PEV respectively
NL No. of load buses
KRw,j ,KPw,j reserve and penalty cost components ofjth WE respectively
nl No. of lines
KRs,k ,KPs,k reserve and penalty cost components of kth PV respectively MOOPF multi-objective OPF
KRpev,n ,KPpev,n reserve and penalty cost components of nth PEV

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: avvari.ravi@gmail.com (R.K. Avvari), dmvk@nitw.ac.in (V.K. D M).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108870
Received 28 July 2022; Received in revised form 12 September 2022; Accepted 4 October 2022
Available online 14 October 2022
0378-7796/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M
ISO Independent system operator
MOEA/D decomposition based MOEA
WE wind energy
PV photovoltaic
PEVplug plugin electric vehicle
RES Renewable energy source
NSGA-II non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II
HV hyper volume
PF Pareto-optimal front
MOPSO multi-objective particle swarm optimization
1. Introduction
The OPF is a method used to determine the best operating point in
terms of control variables to optimize selective objective functions [1]
and has become a crucial aspect of the generation and operation of
contemporary power systems [2]. The primary goal of conventional OPF
is to minimize fuel costs. Nonetheless, environmental concerns and
technological challenges have prompted the study of additional objec­
tives, such as emission, power loss, and voltage profile. Thus, the
MOOPF was intended to optimize many objective functions in power
systems simultaneously. In general, generators fueled by fossil fuels are
considered in the MOOPF problem. RESs, which are sustainable and
environmental friendly, provide a superior option, minimizing envi­
ronmental effects and reducing fossil fuel use. The increasing use of RES
has necessitated research into the integration of OPF with RES in power
networks.
In the early stages of the MOOPF problem, standard approaches like
linear programming [3], quadratic programming [4], and interior point
method [5] were employed. Despite having high convergence properties
and handling constraints well, these conventional approaches cannot
guarantee a globally optimal solution. In addition, standard approaches
are specifically built for each MOOPF issue category. In other words,
each MOOPF issue variant corresponds to a certain solution strategy. In
addition, these methods encounter numerous challenges when
addressing the problem’s features, such as integer and discrete choice
variables, non-differentiable objectives, and expansive search space. In
addition, the implementation of these strategies to the MOOPF issue is
quite difficult [6]. Moreover, these approaches have poor convergence
properties, may become stalled at the local optima, and the initial values
of the problem may have a significant impact on the outcomes. To
overcome the shortcomings of deterministic approaches, EAs have been
developed.
In later stages, with the emergence of a new branch of soft computing
technique, a great number of EAs have been developed. The primary
benefits of such methods are that they can handle expansive search fields
and are less reliant on problem characteristics. Due to their population-
based characteristics, these techniques can also estimate several points
inside the search space. Therefore, EAs are more effective than con­
ventional methods [6] at locating optimal solutions for the MOOPF
problem. In [7], the MOOPF issue was modeled as a MOO problem by
assigning weight vectors for power loss, voltage stability, voltage devi­
ation, and emission. In [8], the author proposed an IAOA to solve the
MOOPF problem. The IAOA uses a dimension learning-based strategy to
build a neighborhood for each object in which neighbors’ data can be
transferred between objects. The MOOPF problem was solved by
transforming multi-objectives into a single objective by assigning some
weight to each objective so that their sum must be equal to unity and the
summing of all objectives. Similarly, numerous researchers [9,10] have
presented a weighted sum (WS)-based MOOPF issue with varying
objective functions. The WS approaches are straightforward for inte­
grating many objective functions into a single target with appropriate
weights. Nonetheless, this method is very dependent on the weights
allocated to each objective value, which in turn influences the ideal
solution. In concave optimization problems, WS technique fails to pro­
vide compromised solutions. To overcome the above problem,
2
Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870
Pareto-based MOEAs have been proposed for solving the MOOPF
problems with and without RESs [11–13].
In the past decade, researchers have mostly focused on resolving the
OPF issues associated with thermal plants. Due to an increase in the
integration of RESs into the power system, researchers have recently
become interested in the OPF problem integrated with RESs. In [14], the
authors created an OPF model with adjustable and asymmetric uncer­
tainty set of wind power incorporating contingencies. In [15], the au­
thors used a fuzzy adaptive artificial physics algorithm to address a
security-constrained OPF problem involving a wind facility. The
studies on OPF that incorporate RESs are undoubtedly promising, going
by what is available in literature. Although several authors have
addressed the OPF problem with the integration of RESs into power
grids, the authors have only focused on the problem with the single
objective function of the cost of fuel [16,17] or the problem with dual
objective functions of the cost of fuel and carbon emissions [18].
However, technical aspects must also be taken into account when
analyzing the impact of RESs on the power system.
In most practical optimization problems, the objective functions
conflict mutually. Using No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem [19], no single
solution is available which can optimize all the objectives. To overcome
this problem, MOO problems have been developed and widely exist in
all applications, such as cloud computing, path planning, design, and
scheduling [20]. These problems consist of more than two conflicting
objectives. The classical MOO techniques convert the MOO problem into
a single-objective optimization issue by developing an aggregation
function using WS and Tchebycheff (TCH) approaches [20]. However,
the fundamental disadvantage of this method is that it must be executed
multiple times to produce the approximation set. To overcome limita­
tions in classical methods, EAs have been proposed, since EAs are
population-based, and can obtain multiple Pareto optimal solutions in a
single run.
The main goal of any MOEA is to improve convergence (finding a set
of solutions closer to the Pareto front) and diversity (finding a well-
distributed set of solutions). The MOEAs proposed in the literature are
classified into three categories [21]: 1) Dominance- based 2) Indicator-
based and 3) Decomposition-based approaches. In the Dominance-based
method, a MOO problem is concurrently optimized by optimizing all
objectives. The Pareto selection principle plays a crucial part in the
convergence process. Besides this, diversity preservation is needed to
maintain an equitable distribution of Pareto optimal solutions. Some
MOEAs based on this approach are NSGA-II [22], MOPSO [23], etc. In
the Indicator-based approach, performance indicators like HV or R2 are
used to calculate the fitness of individuals. The indicator can track the
convergence and variety of a technique. In the Decomposition-based
technique [24], a MOO problem is reduced into single-objective opti­
mization sub-problem using decomposition methods such as WS and
TCH, and these sub-problems are resolved concurrently in a single run.
Even though the dominance and indicator-based strategies are preva­
lent, they have some disadvantages. The fundamental disadvantage of
the dominance-based strategy is that it is inadequate for optimization
problems with many objectives. This is because, in multi-objective sce­
narios, practically all solutions in the population become non-dominant,
diminishing the selection pressure and rendering the optimization pro­
cess ineffective [25]. In an indicator-based approach, the computational
cost of evaluating the HV indicator is a limitation. This expands expo­
nentially as the number of objectives increases. However, the
decomposition-based approach has grabbed the interest of researchers
in MOEA community in the last decade.
As EAs are stochastic, non-feasible solutions should not be discarded
immediately. Using the information included in non-feasible solutions, a
proper CHM in conjunction with an appropriate EA can lead the search
process towards the global feasible optimal solution by leveraging the
information contained in non-feasible solutions. Among many CHMs,
the most common CHM method is a static penalty, which penalizes the
fitness of a non-feasible solution for violating restrictions. Regardless of
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

its simplicity, the effectiveness of the static penalty system relies heavily
∑
NTG
on the punishment component, which is decided randomly by trial and MinF1 =
(
ai + bi PTGi + ci P2TGi
)
error. To overcome the necessity of fine-tuning punishment factor, a new i=1
CHM is employed in this paper. ∑
NWG
[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
In this work, a novel hybrid MOEA based on decomposition and IWO + Cw,j Pws,j + CRw,j Pws,j − Pwav,j + CPw,j Pwav,j − Pws,j
[26] was used to address the MOOPF problem. The MOEA/D [24] was j=1

hybridized with IWO to enhance the balance between exploration and ∑

NSG
[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
exploitation of the MOEA/D method to achieve global optimal solutions. + Cs,k Pss,k + CRs,k Pss,k − Psav,k + CPs,k Psav,k − Pss,k
In addition, an SF strategy was used to address multiple restrictions in
k=1

∑
N
the MOOPF issue. [ ( ) ( ) ( )]
PEV

+ Cpev,n Ppevs,n + CRpev,n Ppevs,n − Ppevav,n + CPpev,n Ppevav,n − Ppevs,n

The major contributions of this study are as follows: n=1

(4)
1) Integrating the stochastic nature of WE, PV, and PEV power sources
with normal OPF to address the influence of the sources’ unpre­ 2.1.2. Total emission (ton/h)
dictable nature. Using traditional fossil fuels to generate power would result in the
2) Introducing a new MOEA based on the hybridization of decomposi­ emission of hazardous gasses into the atmosphere. The following
tion and invasive weed optimization (IWO) techniques for the expression describes the total emissions from thermal generators:
MOOPF problem.
3) Modeling the uncertainty of WE, PV, and PEV energy systems using ∑
NTG
( )
MinF2 = αi + βi PTGi + γi P2TGi + ξi eλi PTGi (5)
PDF and computing its uncertainty cost with Monte Carlo i=1
simulations.
4) Utilizing an effective constraint-handling method (CHM) known as 2.1.3. Active power loss (MW)
superiority of feasible solution (SF) to handle complex restrictions in The following equation can be used to express active power loss:
the MOOPF problem.
NL (
∑ ( ))
MinF3 = Gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cosθij (6)
This article is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the definition k=1
of the MOOPF issue. Section 3 illustrates the WE, PV, and PEV uncer­
tainty modeling. Section 4 deals with the proposed method. The simu­ 2.1.4. Voltage magnitude deviation (p.u.)
lation results are presented in Section 5, and the conclusions are made in The voltage variation is the cumulative sum of voltage deviations at
Section 6. all load buses in the network relative to the reference voltage. The
mathematical expression is as follows:
2. Problem formulation
NPQ
∑ ⃒( )
MinF4 = ⃒ Vi − Vref | (7)
The MOOPF problem seeks to optimize predetermined objectives l=1
while adhering to numerous restrictions by identifying the optimal de­
cision variables. Accordingly, the MOOPF problem is stated as follows: Where Vref =reference voltage (1.0p.u.).
The MOOPF objectives are subjected to the following equality and
MinF(u, x) = [F1 (u, x), F2 (u, x), ..., Fm (u, x)] (1) inequality restrictions.
Subject to:
2.1.5. Equality constraints
h(u, x) = 0 (2) The equality restrictions are power balancing equations in which the
sum of the generations of the real and reactive powers is equal to their
g(u, x) ≤ 0 (3) corresponding demands and losses.
whereFm (u, x)denotesm objective; h(u, x)and g(u, x) indicates equality
th
∑
NB
[ ]
and inequality restrictions respectively. P Gi − P D i − V i Vj Gij cosθij + Bij sinθij = 0 :: ∀i ∈ NB (8)
j=1

2.1. Objective functions

∑
NB
[ ]
Q Gi − Q Di − V i Vj Gij sinθij − Bij cosθij = 0 :: ∀i ∈ NB (9)
The MOOPF problem is formulated by considering four objectives j=1
which involve minimizing (a) total generation cost, (b) emission, (c)
power loss, and (d) voltage deviation. The objectives can be described as 2.1.6. Inequality constraints
follows: The operational limitations on generators, transformers, and shunt
devices, as well as the security requirements on lines and load buses,
2.1.1. Total generation cost ($/h) constitute inequality constraints.
The overall generating cost is the sum of the generation costs of Generator constraints
thermal, WE, PV, and PEV sources and is expressed by the following
equation: Pmin max
TGi ≤ PTGi ≤ PTGi ; ∀i ∈ NTG (10)

Pmin max
WGi ≤ PWGi ≤ PWGi ; ∀i ∈ NWG (11)

Pmin max
SGi ≤ PSGi ≤ PSGi ; ∀i ∈ NSG (12)

Pmin max
PEVi ≤ PPEVi ≤ PPEVi ; ∀i ∈ NPEV (13)

Qmin max
TGi ≤ QTGi ≤ QTGi ; ∀i ∈ NTG (14)

3
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

( ( )) ( ( ))
Qmin max
WGi ≤ QWGi ≤ QWGi ; ∀i ∈ NWG (15) vin k vout k
fw (Pw = 0) = 1 − exp − + exp − (24)
c c
Qmin max
SGi ≤ QSGi ≤ QSGi ; ∀i ∈ NSG (16)
( ( )) ( ( ))
vr k vout k
fw (Pw = Pwr ) = exp − + exp − (25)
min
VGi ≤ VGi ≤ max
VGi ; ∀i ∈ NG (17) c c
Transformer constraints The probability for the continuous zone is as follows:
Tkmin ≤ Tk ≤ Tkmax ; ∀k ∈ NT (18) ( )(
k(vr − vin ) vin Pwr + Pw (vr − vin )
)(k− 1)
fw (Pw ) =
Shunt VAR compensator constraints ( (
cPwr cPwr
(26)
)k )
vin Pwr + Pw (vr − vin )
Qmin
ci ≤ Qci ≤ Qmax
ci ; ∀i ∈ NC (19) exp −
cPwr
Security constraints
min
VLp max
≤ VLp ≤ VLp ; ∀p ∈ NL (20) 3.2. PV modeling

The sun’s irradiance distribution is represented by a lognormal PDF

Slq ≤ Slqmax ; ∀q ∈ nl (21)
and its likelihood distribution is as follows [13]:
The convergence of load flow to a solution implies that equality { }
conditions of power balancing equations are satisfied automatically. 1 − (lnGs − μ)2
fG (Gs ) = √̅̅̅̅̅ exp forGs > 0 (27)
Among inequality restrictions, generator bus active powers (other than a Gs σ 2π 2σ2
slack bus) and generator bus voltages are referred to as self-limiting
The PV irradiance to output power conversion is as follows:
control variables. Slack bus power, generator bus reactive powers,
load bus voltage restrictions, and line capabilities, require specific
consideration. Handling such inequality limits necessitates a proper
constraint handling method.

2.2. Constraint handling method (CHM)

The most prevalent CHM is the penalty function technique. The so­
lution is penalized whenever a constraint violation occurs. The success
of this strategy is heavily reliant on the punishment value, which is
determined by trial and error, causing the fitness value to decline. This
work employed a novel CHM named SF method [27], which doesn’t
need a penalty factor.
Given that MOOPF is a restricted optimization issue, a more effective
CHM is required. In this investigation, the SF approach [27] was used to
resolve the MOOPF issue with WE, PV, and PEV inputs. The following
procedures were used while comparing two individuals:

1) When two infeasible individuals are compared, the one having a

lower violation is chosen.
2) By comparing two viable solutions, the one with the best fitness is
chosen.
3) While feasible and non-feasible solutions are compared, the feasible
option is chosen.

3. Modeling of WE, PV, and PEV sources

3.1. WE modeling

The Weibull PDF was used to define the distribution of wind velocity
[16]. Mathematically, the likelihood of wind velocity is stated as:
( )k
( )( )
k v (k− 1) − vc
f (v) = (e) ,0 < v < ∞ (22)
c c
The output of a wind turbine is stated as:
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0forv < vin andv > vout
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎨ v − vin
Pw (v) = Pwr forvin ≤ vw ≤ vr (23)
⎪
⎪ vr − vin
⎪
⎪
⎩ P forv < v ≤ v
wr r w out

The probabilities for discrete zones are as follows:

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the proposed algorithm.

4
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

⎧ ( 2 )
⎪ Gs ( ) ( )
⎪
⎪ Psr for0 < Gs < Rc CPw,j Pwav,j − Pws,j = KPw,j Pwav,j − Pws,j
⎨ Gstd Rc ∫ Pwr,j
Ps (Gs ) = (28) ( ) ( )
⎪ ( Gs )
⎪ = KPw,j pw,j − Pws,j fw pw,j dpw,j (34)
⎪
⎩ Psr forGs ≥ Rc Pws,j
Gstd
wherefw (pw,j ) is the possibility ofjth wind power.
3.3. PEV modeling
3.6. Uncertainty price estimation of PV power
The deployment of electrical vehicles as V2G source conforms to a
normal distribution and can be represented as follows [18]: Besides WE, PV power also includes reserve and penalty cost com­
1 (Ppev − μ)2 ponents [13].
(29)
−
fpev = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅e 2φ2
Reserve cost forkth PV unit is:
2πφ2

Since WE, PV, and PEV systems are stochastic, MCSs were used to

( ) ( ) ( ) [ ( )]
CRs,k Pss,k − Psav,k = KRs,k Pss,k − Psav,k = KRs,k ∗ fs Psav,k < Pss,k ∗ Pss,k − E Psav,k < Pss,k
(35)

determine their uncertainty price. The expected cost of WE, PV, and PEV The penalty cost forkth PV unit is:
generation is broken down into direct, reserve, and penalty costs.

( ) ( ) ( ) [ ( ) ]
CPs,k Psav,k − Pss,k = KPs,k Psav,k − Pss,k = KPs,k ∗ fs Psav,k > Pss,k ∗ E Psav,k > Pss,k − Pss,k
(36)

3.4. Direct price estimation of WE, PV, and PEV sources wherefs (Psav,k < Pss,k ) and fs (Psav,k > Pss,k )are the probabilities of PV
power;E(Psav,k < Pss,k ),E(Psav,k > Pss,k )are the expectations of PV power.
The direct price ofjth WE unit is:
( )
Cw,j Pws,j = gj Pws,j (30) 3.7. Uncertainty price estimation of PEV sources

The direct cost of kth PV unit is: Similarly, the reserve and penalty costs of PEVs [18] are as follows:
( ) The reserve price of nth PEV is defined as:
Cs,k Pss,k = hk Pss,k (31)

∫ Ppev,n (
( ) ( ) ) ( )
CRpev,n Ppevs,n − Ppevav,n = KRpev,n Ppevs,n − Ppevav,n = KRpev,n Ppevs,n − ppev,n fpev ppev,n dppev,n (37)
0

Similarly, the direct price of nth V2G station is:

( ) The penalty price of nth PEV is defined as:
Cpev,n Ppevs,n = dn Ppevs,n (32)
( ) ( )
CPpev,n Ppevav,n − Ppevs,n = KPpev,n Ppevav,n − Ppevs,n
∫ Ppevr,n
3.5. Uncertainty price estimation of WE power ( ) ( )
= KPpev,n ppev,n − Ppevs,n fpev ppev,n dppev,n
Ppevs,n
As mentioned above, there are two other costs caused by over and (38)
underestimation of powers, these being reserve and penalty costs [13].
The reserve cost ofjth WE unit is: wherefpev (ppev,n ) is the nth PEV power probability.
∫ Pws,j
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
CRw,j Pws,j − Pwav,j = KRw,j Pws,j − Pwav,j = KRw,j Pws,j − pw,j fw pw,j dpw,j 4. Proposed algorithm
0

Typically, the MOEAs had been developed to accommodate several

(33)
contradictory aims, such as enhancing the dispersal of solutions
The penalty cost ofjth WE unit is:

5
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Table 1
Different cases of test systems.
S. No. Test system Cases F1 F2 F3 F4

1. IEEE 57-bus Case 1 • • – –

Case 2 • • • –
Case 3 • • • •
2. IEEE 118-bus Case 4 • – • –
Case 5 • – • •

Table 2
Test systems description.
Specifications IEEE 57-bus IEEE 118-bus

Buses 57 [28] 118 [28]

Branches 80 186
Thermal units 7 Buses:1,2,3,6,8,9 and 12 54 Buses: [28]
Swing bus 1 Bus:1 69 Bus: 69
Transformer tap 17 Lines:19,20,31,35,36,37,41,46, 54,58,59,65,66,71,73,76, and 80 9 Lines: 8,32,36, 51, 93,95,102,107 and 127
positions
Shunt capacitors 3 Buses:18,25, and 53 12 Buses:34,44,45,46,48,74,79,82, 83, 105, 107 and 110
Control variables 36 Generator bus real powers (9) + voltages (7) + transformer tap 131 Generator bus real powers (56) + voltages (54) + transformer tap
settings (17) + shunt capacitor (3). settings (9) + shunt capacitor (12).
Load – 1250.8MW, 336.4MVAR – 4242.0MW, 1439.0MVAR
WE 1 45 1 81
PV 1 16 1 64
PEV 1 49 1 117

throughout the PF (i.e., divergence) and decreasing the gap between the (continued )
solutions along the PF (i.e., convergence) [20]. The compromise be­ 8 V IWO(xk , stdkiter );
tween convergence and variety is essential for selecting the optimal
solution from the possibilities generated. To strike a balance between
/kis chosen from neb(j) /
convergence and variation, a novel methodology is proposed in this
paper.
In this study, we offer a decomposition-based technique for the 1 for eachy ∈ U ∪ Vdo
multi-objective optimization of invasive weeds. We modify IWO [26] for 2 ify ∕
∈ [l, u]then
multi-objective optimization and then include it in MOEA/D [24], which 3 y repair(y);
4 end
provides a decomposition-based multi-objective optimization technique 5 for eachi=1 tomdo
with invasive weed colonies, to merge their exceptional qualities in the 6 ifzi > fi (y)then
proposed hybrid approach. The flowchart of the proposed method as 7 zi = fi (y);
shown in Fig. 1 8 end
9 end
The proposed technique decomposes a multi-objective issue into a
10 for eachi
⃒ ∈ neb(j)do⃒
large number of scalar optimization sub-problems and solves them 11 ifgte (y⃒λi , z) < gte (xi ⃒λi , z)then
simultaneously. In each sub-problem, an adaptive IWO search was used 12 xi = y;
to minimize the aggregation function of all objects under consideration. 13 FVi = F(y);
Each sub-problem has a unique aggregation weight that generates a 14 end
15 end
distinct aggregation function from those of others. The population size at
16 end
each generation is equal to the number of decomposed sub-problems. If 17 end
N is specified as the population size, then N sub-problems must be 18 End Do
simultaneously optimized. The objective function of ith sub-problem can 19 Use fuzzy theory to get best-compromised values [16].

be expressed as follows [34].

( ⃒ ) { ⃒ ⃒}
⃒ ⃒
gte x⃒λi , z∗ = max λij ⃒fj (x) − z∗j ⃒ ; 1 ≤ j ≤ m (39) In line 7 of the pseudo-code, U IWO(xi ,stdiiter )expresses the procedure
of producingxi seeds. U contains the children’s seeds generated byxi .
T Suppose U ={y1 , y2 , ....yk }; thenkis the size of children seeds generated
whereλi = (λi1 , ....λim ) , m is the number of objectives andz∗ =
byxi , which is calculated using (40).
(z∗1 , ....z∗m )T ,z∗i
= min{fi (x)|x ∈ [l, u]}, i = 1, ....mis the point of reference.
( te )
Pseudo-code of the proposed algorithm is given as follows: g − gte
snum = floor temax (s max − s min ) + s min (40)
Input: N: the size of the population;T: neighborhood size, 0<T<N;λ1 , ....λN : Weight gmax − gtemin
vectors;Output: PO solutions;
te te
wheregmin , gmax are obtained as follows:
1 Initialization: ⃒
{ ( ) }
2 x1 , ....xN are randomly selected between[l, u] FVj = F(xj ); gtemin = min gte xk ⃒λi , z∗ |xk ∈ B(i) (41)
3 for each j = 1:N do neb(j)={a,b,….,t};
4 reference point z= (z1,……Zm) T. { ( ⃒ ) }
5 Do while (loop is not met) gtemax = max gte xk ⃒λi , z∗ |xk ∈ B(i) (42)
6 for j = 1:N
j wherestdiiter represents the adaptive SD ofxi and its value can be obtained
7 U IWO(xj , stditer );
through (43) and (44).
(continued on next column)

6
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Fig. 2. IEEE 57-bus system graphical representation.

( )pow
itermax − iter ( ) ⎧( )
σ iter = σfinal + . σinitial − σ final (43) ⎪ gte − gtemean
itermax ⎪
⎪ 1 + Q te
⎨ te ∗ σ iter ; ifgte ≥ gtemean
gmax − gmean
It is evident from (43) that σ iter reduces with increasing iterations. stditer = ( ) (44)
⎪
⎪ gte − gte
However, for each parent seed in a single generation, the value ⎪
⎩ 1 − Q temean ∗ σ iter ; otherwise
te
gmean − gmin
σ iter remains constant. This does not promote exploration or efficient
exploration. Each parent should have weed characteristics that are Wheregmean
te
is formulated as follows:
distinct from those of other parents. In this study, an adaptive SD ∑{ te ( k ⃒⃒ i ∗ ) k }
g x λ , z |x ∈ B(i)
stditer was employed, whose σiter value fluctuates with iteration and rank. gtemean = (45)
The SD can be characterized as follows: |B(i)|

wheregte be the value of the weed’s aggregated scalar function,gmin

te te
,gmax

7
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Table 3 Table 5
PDF specifications and cost components of various sources. IEEE 57-bus system: Comparative analysis.
S. Specifications WE PV PEV Cases Objectives Proposed algorithm NSGA-II [22] MOPSO [23]
No.
Case-1 F1($/h) 35,780.28 35,850.00 35,910.00
1. PDF Weibull Lognormal Normal F2(ton/h) 0.8702 0.9928 1.0120
2. Parameters c = 10, k = 2, μ= 6,σ= 0.6, μ= Case-2 F1($/h) 36,111.28 36,336.00 36,402.69
vin =10 m/sec, Gstd =800 W/ 3.2,φ= F2(ton/h) 0.9568 1.2498 1.0450
vout =12 m/sec, m2,Rc =120 W/m2 0.88 F3(MW) 10.3543 11.0813 12.5591
vr =12 m/sec Case-3 F1($/h) 36,340.27 36,250.00 36,662.59
3. Direct cost 1.75 1.60 1.60 F2(ton/h) 1.1009 1.4175 0.9367
($/MW) F3(MW) 10.9504 12.3871 14.1833
4. Reserve cost 3 3 3 F4(p.u.) 0.8519 1.0481 1.0669
($/MW)
5. Penalty cost 1.5 1.5 1.5
($/MW)

te
andgmean are the lowest, highest, and mean values of weeds in the present
iteration respectively, andQis the regulatory parameter whose value
ranges from 0 to 0.5. |B(i)| is the no. of neighbors ofith sub problem.
Similarly, the same model has been applied to the neighbors of xi in line
8 of the algorithm.
T
Letxi = (xi1 , xi2 , ....xin ) is theith parent individual, y = (y1 , y2 , ....yn )T is
the seeds generated byxi . Where each elementyj is produced as follows:
( )
yj = xij + N 0, stditer
2
; j = 1, 2, ..., n. (46)
Fig. 3. . IEEE 57-bus system: PFs for Case-1.

Table 4
IEEE 57-bus system: BCSs for Case-1 to 3.
S.No. Variables Position Boundaries Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
lower upper

1. Power (MW) 2 0 100 98.6033 74.3511 66.6157

2. 3 0 140 68.1994 84.8910 73.7500
3. 6 0 100 94.1666 76.8214 64.6217
4. 8 0 550 302.9663 306.6662 343.0574
5. 9 0 100 97.5424 96.5544 86.5482
6. 12 0 410 281.1485 323.7556 333.9688
7. 45 0 80 79.8163 76.7799 64.5531
8. 16 0 80 79.6213 77.8880 76.2239
9. 49 0 20 19.0489 20.0000 12.9058
10. Voltage (p.u.) 1 0.95 1.1 1.0336 1.0292 1.0217
11. 2 0.95 1.1 1.0426 1.0307 1.0395
12. 3 0.95 1.1 1.0359 1.0209 1.0209
13. 6 0.95 1.1 1.0238 1.0152 1.0068
14. 8 0.95 1.1 1.0281 1.0278 1.0267
15. 9 0.95 1.1 1.0301 1.0322 1.0334
16. 12 0.95 1.1 0.9964 1.0293 1.0281
17. Tap ratio 19 0.9 1.1 0.9699 1.0169 0.9913
18. 20 0.9 1.1 1.0061 0.9466 0.9981
19. 31 0.9 1.1 0.9952 1.0297 1.0208
20. 35 0.9 1.1 1.0185 1.0392 0.9834
21. 36 0.9 1.1 0.9865 0.9587 1.0104
22. 37 0.9 1.1 1.0302 1.0210 0.9945
23. 41 0.9 1.1 0.9931 0.9793 1.0133
24. 46 0.9 1.1 0.9980 0.9517 0.9548
25. 54 0.9 1.1 0.9789 1.0221 0.9580
26. 58 0.9 1.1 1.0155 0.9831 0.9625
27. 59 0.9 1.1 0.9985 0.9873 0.9783
28. 65 0.9 1.1 0.9916 0.9903 0.9809
29. 66 0.9 1.1 0.9863 0.9828 0.9328
30. 71 0.9 1.1 1.0063 0.9541 1.0035
31. 73 0.9 1.1 1.0113 1.0138 0.9825
32. 76 0.9 1.1 0.9938 0.9960 0.9718
33. 80 0.9 1.1 0.9709 0.9940 1.0180
34. Shunt VAR compensator (Mvar) 18 0 20 9.4263 8.5916 8.6920
35. 25 0 20 7.8862 9.9315 10.1887
36. 53 0 20 9.5980 8.2526 7.1468

1. F1($/h) – – – 35,780.28 36,111.28 36,340.27

2. F2(ton/h) – – – 0.8702 0.9568 1.1009
3. F3(MW) – – – – 10.3543 10.9504
4. F4(p.u.) – – – – – 0.8519

8
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M
Fig. 4. IEEE 57-bus system: PFs for Case-2.
5. Results and discussion
To analyze the robustness and efficacy of the suggested method, IEEE
57 and 118-bus systems were chosen. The proposed method was
implemented in MATLAB R2016a, and simulations were conducted over
an i3-Processor having 4 GB of RAM. To verify the efficacy of the sug­
gested method, comparisons were made with NSGA-II [22] and MOPSO
[23]. The algorithm-specific parameters of all methods were taken from
[16]. In this paper, the stochastic nature of WE, PV, and PEV sources was
taken into account to study the impact of these sources on MOOPF
problem. To consider uncertainties, MCSs have been used to generate
1000 samples.
In general, having more than two objectives is considered as MOO
issue. During the formulation of MOO issue, objective functions are
selected such that they are conflicting. The conflict between aims is
determined by the correlation between objectives. The degree of asso­
ciation between various combinations of objectives will vary according
to the objective. Consideration is given to four distinct objective func­
tions when formulating the combination of objectives. The MOO prob­
lems are built with two, three, and four objectives to demonstrate the
variation in trade-off solutions as the number of objectives increases. To
evaluate the MOO problem with varying degrees of correlation between
objectives, the mix of objectives is taken into account.
To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed solution for MOOPF prob­
lem, a total of five distinct cases were investigated on two test systems.
Table 1 list the different case studies analyzed.
5.1. IEEE 57-bus system
The IEEE 57-bus test system was investigated to demonstrate the
performance of the proposed method for solving the MOOPF problem.
Complete information about the modified IEEE 57-bus test system
incorporating WE, PV, and PEV sources used is given in Table 2 and its
single-line diagram is given in Fig. 2. Notably, the locations of these
sources were chosen from [12], by replacing some load buses with the
respective WE, PV, and PEV sources. The cost and emission constants of
thermal generators were taken from [11]. The PDF specifications and
cost components for WE, PV, and PEV are given in Table 3.
5.1.1. Minimization of F1 and F2 concurrently
In Case-1, two objectives F1 and F2 were considered for concurrent
minimization. The BCS, their respective decision variables obtained by
the suggested algorithm, and their boundary limits are given in Table 4.
The suggested method gives F1 of 35,780.28$/h, and F2 of 0.8702ton/
h; these are lower values in comparison to other methods shown in
Table 5. Fig. 3 depicts the PFs of all the techniques.
5.1.2. Minimization of F1, F2, and F3 concurrently
In Case-2, three objectives F1, F2, and F3 were considered for con­
current minimization. The BCS and their respective control variables
obtained by the proposed method are given in Table 4. The suggested
9
Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870
method gives F1 of 36,111.28$/h, F2 of 0.9568ton /h, and F3 of
10.3543MW; these are lower values in comparison to other methods
shown in Table 5. Fig. 4 depicts the PFs of all the techniques.
5.1.3. Minimization of F1, F2, F3, and F4 concurrently
In Case-3, four objectives F1, F2, F3, and F4 were considered for
concurrent minimization. The BCS and their respective control variables
obtained by the proposed method are given in Table 4. The suggested
method gives F1 of 36,340.27$/h, F2 of 1.1009ton/h, F3 of
10.9504MW, and F4 of 0.8519p.u.; these are the lower values in
comparison to other methods as shown in Table 5.
5.2. IEEE 118-bus system
The IEEE 118-bus system was considered to demonstrate the efficacy
of the suggested method on a big system. The complete information
about the modified IEEE 118-bus test system incorporating WE, PV, and
PEV sources used is given in Table 2. Notably, the locations of these
sources were chosen from [12], by replacing some load buses with
respective WE, PV, and PEV sources. The cost constants of the thermal
units were taken from [11]. Table 3 provides the PDF specifications and
cost components of WE, PV, and PEV sources.
5.2.1. Minimization of F1 and F3 concurrently
In Case-4, two objectives F1 and F3 were considered for concurrent
minimization. The BCS, their respective decision variables obtained by
the suggested algorithm, and their boundary limits are given in Table 6.
The suggested method gives F1 of 127,890.61$/h and F3 of
33.3705MW; these are the lower values in comparison with other
methods as shown in Table 7. Fig. 5 depicts the PFs of all the techniques.
5.2.2. Minimization of F1, F3, and F4 concurrently
In Case-5, three objectives F1, F3, and F4 were considered for con­
current minimization. The BCS and their respective decision variables
obtained by the suggested algorithm for this case are given in Table 6.
The suggested method gives F1 of 130,749.11$/h, F3 of 38.2259MW,
and F4 of 0.4511p. u.; these values are lower in comparison with other
methods shown in Table 7. Fig. 6 depicts the PFs of all the techniques.
5.3. Statistical analysis
The statistical inference for Case-1 and Case-4, including minimum,
maximum, average, and standard deviation (SD) values, are given in
Table 8a and 8b. It is obvious from Table 8a and 8b that the values
obtained by the suggested method are least in contrast to other ap­
proaches. This emphasizes the good quality solution of the suggested
method in relation to other approaches.
Because of the randomness of algorithms, it is necessary to execute
them multiple times on the same problem instance to obtain results that
may differ with each execution. Rather than depending on the preceding
statistical results, it is preferable to conduct a one-way ANOVA [29].
This test is necessary to establish a level of confidence in our
investigation.
ANOVA is a statistical tool used to assess the mean of different ap­
proaches developed for each experiment in which there is a significant
difference. Here, the significance level is set to 5%; if the P-value is lower
than 0.05%, a significant difference between the suggested and other
approaches occurs. Table 9a and 9b present the ANOVA results for Case-
1. It is evident from the tables that the P-value calculated is significantly
lower than 0.05, indicating that the suggested algorithm is statistically
distinct from NSGA-II [22] and MOPSO [23].
Box plots were also utilized in statistical analysis. A box plot extends
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Table 6
IEEE 118-bus system: BCSs for Case-4 to 5.
Variables Position Limits Case-4 Case-5 Variables Position Limits Case-4 Case-5
lower upper Lower upper

Power (MW) 1 0 100 55.9460 48.6240 26 0.95 1.1 1.0178 1.0307

4 0 100 39.0503 43.6199 27 0.95 1.1 1.0297 1.0318
6 0 100 56.3835 56.3541 31 0.95 1.1 1.0184 1.0121
8 0 100 54.5506 37.2383 32 0.95 1.1 1.0182 1.0019
10 0 550 173.927 181.510 34 0.95 1.1 1.0243 1.0045
12 0 185 67.0061 85.3627 36 0.95 1.1 1.0429 1.0027
15 0 100 48.2205 48.2502 40 0.95 1.1 1.0352 1.0122
18 0 100 45.9455 40.6351 42 0.95 1.1 1.0165 1.0207
19 0 100 51.4212 38.9266 46 0.95 1.1 1.0292 1.0287
24 0 100 45.6110 43.8313 49 0.95 1.1 1.0177 1.0110
25 0 320 88.1517 107.417 54 0.95 1.1 1.0228 1.0018
26 0 414 139.941 143.538 55 0.95 1.1 1.0168 1.0151
27 0 100 56.0018 53.8079 56 0.95 1.1 1.0154 1.0180
31 0 107 18.1830 10.9532 59 0.95 1.1 1.0193 1.0160
32 0 100 51.1361 44.4332 61 0.95 1.1 1.0296 1.0011
34 0 100 42.2086 53.2355 62 0.95 1.1 1.0245 1.0068
36 0 100 41.1170 51.3992 65 0.95 1.1 1.0144 1.0007
40 0 100 66.2173 43.2414 66 0.95 1.1 1.0162 1.0112
42 0 100 59.6259 64.8196 69 0.95 1.1 1.0250 1.0095
46 0 119 35.3173 53.9039 70 0.95 1.1 1.0266 1.0118
49 0 304 142.501 162.688 72 0.95 1.1 0.9897 1.0338
54 0 148 85.1966 79.4450 73 0.95 1.1 1.0493 1.0116
55 0 100 43.7812 46.0740 74 0.95 1.1 1.0115 1.0220
56 0 100 73.7154 64.3958 76 0.95 1.1 1.0384 1.0181
59 0 255 142.951 121.802 77 0.95 1.1 1.0260 1.0069
61 0 260 112.737 102.575 80 0.95 1.1 1.0323 1.0154
62 0 100 32.7737 33.4058 85 0.95 1.1 1.0222 1.0083
65 0 491 219.553 185.720 87 0.95 1.1 1.0175 1.0229
66 0 492 210.691 173.373 89 0.95 1.1 1.0459 1.0158
70 0 100 44.5214 39.1977 90 0.95 1.1 1.0331 1.0215
72 0 100 28.1889 38.9919 91 0.95 1.1 1.0313 1.0356
73 0 100 45.6510 33.4913 92 0.95 1.1 1.0322 1.0073
74 0 100 52.7319 54.0390 99 0.95 1.1 1.0288 1.0398
76 0 100 57.4716 59.8387 100 0.95 1.1 1.0363 1.0168
77 0 100 49.0969 49.5707 103 0.95 1.1 1.0262 1.0155
80 0 577 264.626 215.734 104 0.95 1.1 1.0230 1.0330
85 0 100 38.1422 53.5711 105 0.95 1.1 1.0227 1.0089
87 0 104 9.2807 8.5961 107 0.95 1.1 1.0192 1.0293
89 0 707 226.574 247.730 110 0.95 1.1 1.0160 1.0135
90 0 100 44.6105 47.3346 111 0.95 1.1 1.0152 1.0249
91 0 100 45.9099 42.2742 112 0.95 1.1 1.0099 1.0278
92 0 100 35.3494 34.6101 113 0.95 1.1 1.0405 1.0139
99 0 100 38.3796 53.0877 116 0.95 1.1 1.0306 1.0077
100 0 352 136.606 150.785 Tap ratio 8 0.9 1.1 0.9871 1.0178
103 0 140 56.5448 47.0893 32 0.9 1.1 0.9952 1.0190
104 0 100 33.6492 60.5636 36 0.9 1.1 0.9914 0.9827
105 0 100 56.5368 30.3130 51 0.9 1.1 1.0251 0.9933
107 0 100 28.6504 58.8769 93 0.9 1.1 1.0069 1.0144
110 0 100 52.2132 35.2832 95 0.9 1.1 0.9791 0.9795
111 0 136 32.2479 38.7994 102 0.9 1.1 1.0044 0.9924
112 0 100 25.2790 44.2174 107 0.9 1.1 0.9813 0.9928
113 0 100 23.7058 44.1563 127 0.9 1.1 1.0172 0.9870
116 0 100 46.6905 45.1908 Shunt VAR compensator (Mvar) 34 0 25 11.6919 13.8154
81 0 150 116.444 139.032 44 0 25 11.2106 10.0945
64 0 150 126.922 104.668 45 0 25 14.6353 15.2303
117 0 40 19.4935 21.7456 46 0 25 9.9899 12.5583
Voltage (p.u.) 1 0.95 1.1 1.0190 1.0200 48 0 25 11.2227 10.7383
4 0.95 1.1 1.0210 1.0063 74 0 25 17.2265 13.3213
6 0.95 1.1 1.0217 1.0128 79 0 25 12.3653 12.9234
8 0.95 1.1 1.0246 1.0092 82 0 25 7.8219 14.5555
10 0.95 1.1 1.0313 0.9973 83 0 25 9.2042 11.3947
12 0.95 1.1 1.0286 1.0310 105 0 25 10.8933 17.0364
15 0.95 1.1 1.0220 1.0048 107 0 25 11.7149 11.3518
18 0.95 1.1 1.0210 1.0177 110 0 25 11.1915 11.8901
19 0.95 1.1 1.0287 1.0345 F1($/h) – – – 127,890.6 130,749.11
24 0.95 1.1 1.0250 1.0231 F3(MW) – – – 33.3705 38.2259
25 0.95 1.1 0.9987 1.0055 F4(p.u) – – – – 0.4511

10
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870

Table 7 Table 9a
IEEE 118-bus system: Comparative Analysis. Case-1: ANOVA results for F1.
Cases Objectives Proposed algorithm NSGA-II[22] MOPSO[23] variation SS df MS F P-value
Case-4 F1($/h) 127,890.61 129,582.23 130,673.5 between 7.7351E+07 2 38,675,881.2 121.12 3.4325E-39
F3(MW) 33.3705 37.3464 38.0368 within 9.4840E+07 297 319,329 – –
Case-5 F1($/h) 130,749.11 134,395.5 133,574.6 total 1.7219E+08 299 – – –
F3(MW) 38.2259 40.0724 41.3020
F4(p.u.) 0.4511 0.6876 0.9706
Table 9b
Case-1: ANOVA results for F2.
variation SS df MS F P-value

between 3.3944 2 1.6972 250.22 2.0027E-64

within 2.01447 297 0.00678 – –
total 5.40887 299 – – –

Fig. 5. IEEE 118-bus system: PFs for Case-4.
Fig. 6. . IEEE 118-bus system: PFs for Case-5.
from the lower hinge (the 25th percentile) to the upper hinge (the 75th
percentile) and contains the middle half of the scores from a distribu­
tion. A line that crosses the center of the box denotes the median.
Consequently, one-fourth of the distribution is located between the
median and the top line, and one-fourth is located between the median
and bottom line.
Fig. 7 depicts the box plots for Case-1. It demonstrates that the rec­
ommended algorithm leads to better variance and mean values
compared to other methods, indicating that the suggested method is
highly resilient.
Box plots demonstrate conclusively that the proposed method pro­
duces superior outcomes. Based on ANOVA data, it is confirmed that the
suggested method provides the most optimal outcomes compared to
other methods.

Table 8a
IEEE 57-bus system: statistical conclusions for Case-1.
Algorithm Objective function Case-1
Min. Max. Avg. SD

Proposed algorithm F1($/h) 3.526Eþ04 3.735Eþ04 3.583Eþ04 509.00

F2(ton/h) 0.7725 1.081 0.8766 0.0714
NSGA-II [22] F1($/h) 3.536E+04 3.742E+04 3.615E+04 626.00
F2(ton/h) 0.8097 1.138 0.9626 0.0994
MOPSO [23] F1($/h) 3.534E+04 3.786E+04 3.586E+04 520.40
F2(ton/h) 0.9391 1.203 1.057 0.0914

Table 8b
IEEE 118-bus system: statistical conclusions for Case-4.
Algorithm Objective function Case-4
Min. Max. Avg. SD

Proposed algorithm F1($/h) 1.273Eþ05 1.319Eþ05 1.289Eþ05 1114

F3(MW) 31.07 37.53 33.39 1.818
NSGA-II [22] F1($/h) 1.291E+05 1.329E+05 1.305E+05 1125
F3(MW) 33.48 40.38 35.93 1.821
MOPSO [23] F1($/h) 1.302E+05 1.333E+05 1.315E+05 1225
F3(MW) 36.09 45.04 38.48 2.521

11
R.K. Avvari and V.K. D M
Fig. 7. Case-1: IEEE 57-bus system: Box plots.
6. Conclusions
This article introduced a solution to the MOOPF problem in a ther­
mal, WE, PV and PEV integrated power system using hybrid MOEA
based on decomposition and invasive weed optimization (IWO) method.
It also addresses numerous restrictions of the MOOPF issue with the
superiority of the feasible solution (SF) method. In conjunction with the
minimizing of carbon emissions, power loss, and voltage variation, the
fuel costs of traditional generators and the uncertainty costs of WE, PV,
and PEV systems are reduced. The unpredictability of WE, PV, and PEV
powers was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. To illustrate the
efficiency of the recommended approach, simulations were run on the
same platforms using NSGA-II and MOPSO methods. The outcomes
demonstrate that the proposed approach is more reliable and superior to
other approaches. The significance of the proposed approach results
relative to other methodologies has been confirmed by a one-way
ANOVA test, enhancing the credibility of our work. Hence, the recom­
mended approach can be used for planning and operating the power
system.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ravi Kumar Avvari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura­
tion, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Validation,
Writing – review & editing. Vinod Kumar D M: Supervision,
Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] W. Warid, H. Hizam, N. Mariun, N.I.A. Wahab, A novel quasi-oppositional
modified Jaya algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow solutions, Appl.
Soft Comput. 65 (2018) 360–373.
[2] A.M. Shaheem, R.A. El-Sehiemy, S.M. Farrag, Solving multi-objective optimal
power flow problem via forced initialized differential evolution algorithm, IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib. 10 (2016) 1634–1647.
[3] K. Zehar, S. Sayah, ‘Optimal power flow with environmental constraint using a fast
successive linear programming algorithm: application to the Algerian power
system, Energy Convers. Manage. 49 (11) (2008) 3362–3366.
[4] G.P. Granelli, M. Montagna, ‘Security-constrained economic dispatch using dual
quadratic programming, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 56 (1) (2000) 71–80.
[5] J.A. Momoh, J.Z. Zhu, ‘Improved interior point method for OPF problems, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 14 (3) (1999) 1114–1120.
[6] W. Warid, H. Hizam, N. Mariun, N.I.A. Wahab, ‘A novel quasi-oppositional
modified Jaya algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow solution, Appl.
Soft Comput. 65 (2018) 360–373.
12
Electric Power Systems Research 214 (2023) 108870
[7] K. Abaci, V. Yamacli, ‘Differential search algorithm for solving multi-objective
optimal power flow problem,’’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 79 (Jul. 2016)
1–10.
[8] Akdag Ozan, A improved archimedes optimization algorithm for multi/single-
objective optimal power flow, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 206 (2022), 107796.
[9] A.A. El-Fergany, H.M. Hasanien, Single and multi-objective optimal power flow
using grey wolf optimizer and differential evolution algorithms, Elect. Power
Comp. Syst. 43 (2015) 1548–1559, no.13.
[10] I.U. Khan, et al., Heuristic algorithm based optimal power flow model
incorporating stochastic renewable energy sources, IEEE Access 8 (2020)
148622–148643.
[11] R.K. Avvari, D.M. Vinod Kumar, Multi-objective optimal power flow with efficient
constraint handling using hybrid decomposition and local dominance method,
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (2022).
[12] H.T.H. Bao, et al., Performance improvement of multi-objective optimal power
flow-based renewable energy sources using intelligent algorithm, IEEE Access 10
(2022) 48379–48404.
[13] R.K. Avvari, D.M. Vinod Kumar, Multi-objective optimal power flow including
wind and solar generation uncertainty using new hybrid evolutionary algorithm
with efficient constraint handling method, Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. (2022).
[14] Lei You, et al., Risk-based contingency-constrained optimal power flow with
adjustable uncertainty set of wind power, IEEE Trans. Indus. Inform. 18 (2021)
996–1008, no.2.
[15] K. 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. 29 (2018) 855–871, no.3.
[16] U. Guvenc, S. Duman, H.T. Kahraman, S. Aras, M. Katı, Fitness– distance balance
based adaptive guided differential evolution algorithm for security-constrained
optimal power flow problem incorporating renewable energy sources, Appl. Soft
Comput. 108 (2021). Art. no. 107421.
[17] E. Kaymaz, S. Duman, U. Guvenc, Optimal power flow solution with stochastic
wind power using the Lévy coyote optimization algorithm, Neural Comput. Appl.
33 (12) (2021) 6775–6804.
[18] J. Zhao, F. Wen, Z.Y. Dong, Y. Xue, K.P. Wong, Optimal dispatch of electric vehicles
and wind power using enhanced particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Indus.
Inform. 8 (4) (2012) 889–899.
[19] D.H. Wolpert, W.G. Macready, No free lunch theorems for optimization, IEEE
Trans. Evol. Comput. 1 (1) (1997) 67–82.
[20] A. Trivedi, D. Srinivasan, K. Sanyal, A. Ghosh, A survey of multiobjective
evolutionary algorithms based on decomposition, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 21 (3)
(2017) 440–462.
[21] Y. Tan, X. Lu, Y. Liu, Q. Wang, H. Zhang, Decomposition-based multiobjective
optimization with invasive weed colonies, Mathem. Prob. Eng. (2019).
[22] 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.
[23] C.A.C. Coello, G.T. Pulido, M.S. Lechuga, Handling multiple objectives with
particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 8 (3) (2004) 256–279.
[24] Q. Zhang, H. Li, MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on
decomposition, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 11 (6) (2007) 712–731.
[25] I. Giagkiozis, P.J. Fleming, Methods for multi-objective optimization: an analysis,
Inf. Sci. 293 (2015) 338–350.
[26] R. Mehrabian Ali, C. Lucas, A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired
from weed colonization, Eco. Info. 1 (2006) 355–366, no.4.
[27] K. Deb, An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 186 (2000) 311–338.
[28] R.D. Zimmerman, C.E. Murillo-Sánchez, R.J. Thomas, MATPOWER: steady-state
operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26 (1) (2011) 12–19.
[29] R K Avvari, V Kumar D M, A Novel Hybrid Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm
for Optimal Power ↱Flow in Wind, PV, and PEV Systems, Journal of Operation and
Automation in Power Engineering 11 (2) (2023) 130–143.