Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

Differential evolution algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch

Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Menouya University, Egypt Electrical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Reactive power dispatch (RPD) is one of the important tasks in the operation and control of power system. This paper presents an efcient and reliable evolutionary-based approach to solve the RPD problem. The proposed approach employs differential evolution (DE) algorithm for optimal settings of RPD control variables. The proposed approach is examined and tested on the standard IEEE 30-bus test system with different objectives that reect power losses minimization, voltage prole improvement, and voltage stability enhancement. The simulation results of the proposed approach are compared to those reported in the literature. The results demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach and show its effectiveness and robustness to solve the RPD problem. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 21 August 2009 Received in revised form 12 August 2010 Accepted 4 October 2010 Available online 30 October 2010 Keywords: Reactive power dispatch Differential Evolution algorithm Fuel cost minimization Voltage prole improvement Voltage stability enhancement

1. Introduction The purpose of the reactive power dispatch (RPD) in power system is to identify the control variables which minimize the given objective function while satisfying the unit and system constraints. This goal is achieved by proper adjustment of reactive power variables like generator voltage magnitudes, switchable VAR sources and transformer tap setting [1]. In the past two decades, the problem of RPD for improving economy and security of power system operation has received much attention. The main objective of optimal reactive power control is to improve the voltage prole and minimizing system real power losses via redistribution of reactive power in the system. In addition, the voltage stability can be enhanced by reallocating reactive power generations. Therefore, the problem of the RPD can be optimized to enhance the voltage stability, improve voltage prole and minimize the system losses as well [24]. To solve the RPD problem, a number of conventional optimization techniques [5,6] have been proposed. These include the Gradient method, Non-linear Programming (NLP), Quadratic Programming (QP), Linear programming (LP) and Interior point method. Though these techniques have been successfully applied for solving the reactive power dispatch problem, still some difculties are associated with them. One of the difculties is the multimodal characteristic of the problems to be handled. Also, due to the non-differential, non-linearity and non-convex nature of the

Corresponding author. E-mail address: shi [email protected] (S.R. Spea).

RPD problem, majority of the techniques converge to a local optimum. Recently, Evolutionary Computation techniques like Genetic Algorithm (GA) [7], Evolutionary Programming (EP) [8] and Evolutionary Strategy [9] have been applied to solve the optimal dispatch problem. In this paper, a new evolutionary computation technique, called Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm is used to solve RPD problem. Recently, differential evolution (DE) algorithm has been proposed and introduced [1013]. The algorithm is inspired by biological and sociological motivations and can take care of optimality on rough, discontinuous and multi-modal surfaces. The DE has three main advantages: it can nd near optimal solution regardless the initial parameter values, its convergence is fast and it uses few number of control parameters. In addition, DE is simple in coding and easy to use. It can handle integer and discrete optimization [1013]. The performance of DE algorithm was compared to that of different heuristic techniques. It is found that, the convergence speed of DE is signicantly better than that of GAs [12]. In [14], the performance of DE was compared to PSO and evolutionary algorithms (EAs). The comparison is performed on a suite of 34 widely used benchmark problems. It is found that, DE is the best performing algorithm as it nds the lowest tness value for most of the problems considered in that study. Also, DE is robust; it is able to reproduce the same results consistently over many trials, whereas the performance of PSO is far more dependent on the randomized initialization of the individuals [14]. In addition, the DE algorithm has been used to solve high-dimensional function optimization (up to 1000 dimensions) [15]. It is found that, it has superior performance on a set of widely used benchmark functions. Therefore, the

0378-7796/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2010.10.005

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

459

DE algorithm seems to be a promising approach for engineering optimization problems. It has successfully been applied and studied to many articial and real optimization problems [1620]. In [2123], the DE algorithm is used as an optimization tool for the reactive power optimization with the propose of minimizing the system power losses while maintaining the dependant variables including voltages of PQ-buses and reactive power outputs of generators, within limits. In [24], the DE algorithm is used to solve reactive power dispatch for voltage stability enhancement. In this paper, a novel DE-based approach is proposed to solve the RPD problem. The problem is formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem with equality and inequality constraints. In this study, different objectives are considered such as minimizing the power losses, improving the voltage prole, and enhancing power system voltage stability. The proposed approach has been examined and tested on the standard IEEE 30-bus test system. The potential and effectiveness of the proposed approach are demonstrated. Additionally, the results are compared to those reported in the literature. 2. Problem formulation The objective of RPD is to identify the reactive power control variables, which minimizes the objective functions. This is mathematically stated as follows: 2.1. Problem objectives In this study, the following objectives are considered: 2.1.1. Minimization of system power losses The minimization of system real power losses Ploss (MW) can be calculated as follows:
nl

voltage stability and move the system far from the voltage collapse point, the following objective function can be used: f3 = Lmax 2.2. System constraints 2.2.1. Equality constraints These constraints represent load ow equations:
NB

(3)

PGi PDi Vi
j=1 NB

Vj [Gij cos(i j ) + Bij sin(i j )] = 0

(4)

QGi QDi Vi
j=1

Vj [Gij sin(i j ) Bij cos(i j )] = 0

(5)

where i = 1,. . .,NB; NB is the number of buses, PG is the active power generated, QG is the reactive power generated, PD is the load active power, QD is the load reactive power, Gij and Bij are the transfer conductance and susceptance between bus i and bus j, respectively. 2.2.2. Inequality constraints These constraints include: 1. Generator constraints: generator voltages, and reactive power outputs are restricted by their lower and upper limits as follows:
min max VGi VGi VGi , min max QGi QGi QGi ,

i = 1, . . . , NG i = 1, . . . , NG

(6) (7)

2. Transformer constraints: transformer tap settings are bounded as follows: Timin Ti Timax , i = 1, . . . , NT (8)

f1 = Ploss =
k =1

gk [Vi2 + Vj2 2Vi Vj cos(i j )]

(1)

where nl is the number of transmission lines; gk is the conductance of the kth line; Vi and Vj are the voltage magnitude at the end buses i and j of the kth line, respectively, and i and j are the voltage phase angle at the end buses i and j. 2.1.2. Voltage prole improvement Bus voltage is one of the most important security and service quality indices. Improving voltage prole can be obtained by minimizing the load bus voltage deviations from 1.0 per unit. The objective function can be expressed as: f2 =
i NL

3. Shunt VAR constraints: shunt VAR compensations are restricted by their limits as follows:
min max Qci Qci Qci ,

i = 1, . . . , NC

(9)

Security constraints: these include the constraints of voltages at load buses and transmission line loadings as follows:
min max VLi VLi VLi ,

i = 1, . . . , NL

(10) (11)

Sli

max Sli ,

i = 1, . . . , nl

Vi 1.0

(2)

3. Differential evolution algorithm 3.1. Overview In 1995, Storn and Price proposed a new oating point encoded evolutionary algorithm for global optimization and named it differential evolution (DE) algorithm owing to a special kind of differential operator, which they invoked to create new off-spring from parent chromosomes instead of classical crossover or mutation [10]. Similar to GAs, DE algorithm is a population based algorithm that uses crossover, mutation and selection operators. The main differences between the genetic algorithm and DE algorithm are the selection process and the mutation scheme that makes DE self adaptive. In DE, all solutions have the same chance of being selected as parents. DE employs a greedy selection process that is the best new solution and its parent wins the competition providing signicant advantage of converging performance over genetic algorithms.

where NL is the number of load buses. 2.1.3. Voltage stability enhancement It is very important to maintain constantly acceptable bus voltage at each bus under normal operating conditions, after load increase, following system conguration changes, or when the system is being subjected to a disturbance. The non-optimized control variables may lead to progressive and uncontrollable drop in voltage resulting in an eventual widespread voltage collapse. Enhancing voltage stability can be achieved through minimizing the voltage stability indicator L-index values at every bus of the system and consequently the global power system L-index [25]. L-index gives a scalar number to each load bus. This index uses information on a normal power ow. L-index is in the range of zero (no load case) and one (voltage collapse). Details of L-index calculation and derivation are given in Appendix A. In order to enhance the

460

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

Initialization of Chromosomes

0.4 and 1.0. So, the process for the jth component of each vector can be expressed as,

Mutation Differential Operator

vi,j (t + 1) = xr 1,j (t ) + F (xr 2,j (t ) xr 3,j (t ))

(13)

Crossover

Selection
Fig. 1. DE cycle of stages.

3.2. DE computational ow DE algorithm is a population based algorithm using three operators; crossover, mutation and selection. Several optimization parameters must also be tuned. These parameters have joined together under the common name control parameters. In fact, there are only three real control parameters in the algorithm, which are differentiation (or mutation) constant F, crossover constant CR, and size of population NP. The rest of the parameters are dimension of problem D that scales the difculty of the optimization task; maximum number of generations (or iterations) GEN, which may serve as a stopping condition; and low and high boundary constraints of variables that limit the feasible area [10,11]. The proper setting of NP is largely dependent on the size of the problem. Storn and Price [10] remarked that for real-world engineering problems with D control variables, NP = 20D will probably be more than adequate, NP as small as 5D is often possible, although optimal solutions using NP < 2D should not be expected. In [13], Storn and Price set the size of population less than the recommended NP = 10D in many of their test tasks. In [14], it is recommended using of NP 4D. In [15], NP = 5D is a good choice for a rst try, and then increase or decrease it by discretion. So, as a rough principle, several tries before solving the problem may be sufcient to choose the suitable number of the individuals. The DE algorithm works through a simple cycle of stages, presented in Fig. 1. These stages can be cleared as follow: 3.2.1. Initialization At the very beginning of a DE run, problem independent variables are initialized in their feasible numerical range. Therefore, if the jth variable of the given problem has its lower and upper L and xu , respectively, then the jth component of the bound as xj j ith population members may be initialized as,
L u L xi,j (0) = xj + rand(0, 1) (xj xj )

3.2.3. Crossover To increase the diversity of the population, crossover operator is carried out in which the donor vector exchanges its components with those of the current member Xi (t ). Two types of crossover schemes can be used with DE technique. These are exponential crossover and binomial crossover. Although the exponential crossover was proposed in the original work of Storn and Price [10], the binomial variant was much more used in recent applications [14]. In exponential type, the crossover is performed on the D variables in one loop as far as it is within the CR bound. The rst time a randomly picked number between 0 and 1 goes beyond the CR value, no crossover is performed and the remaining variables are left intact. In binomial type, the crossover is performed on all D variables as far as a randomly picked number between 0 and 1 is within the CR value. So for high values of CR, the exponential and binomial crossovers yield similar results. Moreover, in the case of exponential crossover one has to be aware of the fact that there is a small range of CR values (typically [0.9, 1]) to which the DE is sensitive. This could explain the rule of thumb derived for the original variant of DE. On the other hand, for the same value of CR, the exponential variant needs a larger value for the scaling parameter F in order to avoid premature convergence [26]. In this paper, binomial crossover scheme is used which is performed on all D variables and can be expressed as: ui,j (t ) =

vi,j (t ) xi,j (t )

if rand(0, 1) < CR else

(14)

ui,j (t) represents the child that will compete with the parent xi,j (t). 3.2.4. Selection To keep the population size constant over subsequent generations, the selection process is carried out to determine which one of the child and the parent will survive in the next generation, i.e., at time t = t + 1. DE actually involves the Survival of the ttest principle in its selection process. The selection process can be expressed as, Xi (t + 1) = Ui (t ) Xi (t ) if f (Ui (t )) f (Xi (t )) if f (Xi (t )) < f (U (t )) (15)

where, f () is the function to be minimized. From Eq. (10) we noticed that: If ui (t) yields a better value of the tness function, it replaces its target Xi (t ) in the next generation. Otherwise, Xi (t ) is retained in the population. Hence, the population either gets better in terms of the tness function or remains constant but never deteriorates. 3.3. DE-based approach implementation The proposed DE-based approach has been developed and implemented using the MATLAB software. Several runs have been done with different values of DE key parameters such as differentiation (or mutation) constant F, crossover constant CR, size of population NP, and maximum number of generations GEN which is used here as a stopping criteria to nd the optimal DE key parameters. In this paper, the following values of DE key parameters are

(12)

where rand(0,1) is a uniformly distributed random number between 0 and 1. 3.2.2. Mutation In each generation to change each population member Xi (t ), a donor vector vi (t ) is created. It is the method of creating this donor vector, which demarcates between the various DE schemes. However, in this paper, one such specic mutation strategy known as DE/rand/1 is discussed. To create a donor vector vi (t ) for each ith member, three parameter vectors xr1 , xr2 and xr3 are chosen randomly from the current population and not coinciding with the current xi . Next, a scalar number F scales the difference of any two of the three vectors and the scaled difference is added to the third one whence the donor vector vi (t ) is obtained. The usual choice for F is a number between

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

461

selected for the optimization of power losses and voltage stability enhancement: F = 0.2; CR = 0.6; NP = 150; GEN = 500 and DE key parameters for the optimization of voltage deviations are selected as: F = 0.2; CR = 0.6; NP = 50; GEN = 500 The rst step in the algorithm is creating an initial population. All the independent variables which include generator voltages, transformer tap settings and shunt VAR compensations have to be generated according to Eq. (12), where each independent parameter of each individual in the population is assigned a value inside its given feasible region. This creates parent vectors of independent variables for the rst generation. After, nding the independent variables, dependent variables will be found from a load ow solution. These dependent variables include generators reactive power, voltages at load buses and transmission line loadings. It should be mentioned that, the real power settings of the generators are taken from [4]. 4. Results and discussion The proposed DE-based algorithm has been tested on the standard IEEE 6-generator 30-bus test system shown in Fig. 2. The system data is given in Appendix B [27]. This system has 19-control variable as follows: 6-generator voltage magnitude, 4-tap transformer setting and 9-switchable VAR. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, three different cases have been considered as follows: Case1: Minimization of system power losses. Case2: Improvement of voltage prole. Case3: Enhancement of voltage stability. 4.1. Case1 (minimization of system power losses) In the rst case, the proposed algorithm is run with minimization of real power losses as the objective function. As mentioned above, the real power settings of the generators are taken from [2]. The convergence characteristic of the algorithm is shown in Fig. 3. The algorithm reaches a minimum loss of 4.5550 MW. The optimal
Table 1 Optimal settings of control variables for different cases. Case1: minimization of power losses V1 V2 V5 V8 V11 V13 T11 T12 T15 T36 Qc10 Qc12 Qc15 Qc17 Qc20 Qc21 Qc23 Qc24 Qc29 Power losses (MW) Voltage deviations Lmax 1.1000 1.0931 1.0736 1.0756 1.1000 1.1000 1.0465 0.9097 0.9867 0.9689 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 4.4060 5.0000 2.8004 5.0000 2.5979 4.5550 1.9589 0.5513
1

29 27 30 26 25 28

23

24

15

18 17 21

19 20

14

16

22

13

12 11 9

10

6 7

Fig. 2. Single line diagram of IEEE 30-bus test system.

values of the control variables are given in the second column of Table 1. The minimum loss obtained by the proposed algorithm is compared with the results reported in [24] using the evolutionary computation techniques for the same test system. The results of the comparison are given in Table 2. From the comparison, the proposed algorithm gives the minimum losses which demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. 4.2. Case2 (improvement of voltage prole) In the second case, the proposed DE-based approach is applied for improvement of voltage prole. The convergence characteristic

Case2: voltage prole improvement 1.0100 0.9918 1.0179 1.0183 1.0114 1.0282 1.0265 0.9038 1.0114 0.9635 4.9420 1.0885 4.9985 0.2393 4.9958 4.9075 4.9863 4.9663 2.2325 6.4755 0.0911 0.5734

Case3: voltage stability enhancement 1.0993 1.0967 1.0990 1.0346 1.0993 0.9517 0.9038 0.9029 0.9002 0.9360 0.6854 4.7163 4.4931 4.5100 4.4766 4.6075 3.8806 4.2854 3.2541 7.0733 1.4191 0.1246

462

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2

0.13

0.129

0.128

Ploss(MW)

5.1

Lmax

5 4.9

0.127

0.126 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 0 0.124 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0.125

Generations
Fig. 3. Power losses variations of Case1. Table 2 Comparison of power losses for different methods. Method Strength pareto evolutionary algorithm [2] Genetic algorithm [3] Genetic algorithm-based approach [4] Proposed algorithm Ploss (MW) 5.1170 4.5800 4.6501 4.5550

Generations
Fig. 5. Lmax variations of Case3.

Table 4 Comparison of Lmax value for different methods. Method Strength pareto evolutionary algorithm [2] Proposed algorithm Lmax 0.1397 0.1246

4.3. Case3 (enhancement of voltage stability) of the algorithm for this case is shown in Fig. 4. The optimal values of the control variable settings obtained in this case are given in the third column of Table 1. In this case, the voltage deviations are reduced from 1.1606 in the initial state to 0.0911 with a reduction of 92.15%. The comparison with the results reported in [1] is given in Table 3 where 79.11% reduction is achieved. From the comparison, the proposed algorithm gives the best results for voltage deviations which demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
0.3

0.25

In the third case, the proposed DE-based approach is applied for enhancement of voltage stability as the objective. The convergence characteristic of the algorithm for this case is shown in Fig. 5. The optimal values of the control variable settings obtained in this case are given in the fourth column of Table 1. In this case, the maximum L-index of the system has been reduced from 0.2144 in the initial state to 0.1246. Hence, it is observed that there is an increase in performance of the system. Thus it results in the enhancement of voltage stability level of the system. The results of the comparison with the results reported in the literature are given in Table 4. From the comparison, the proposed algorithm gives the best results for Lmax which demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. 5. Conclusions

Voltage Deviations

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Generations
Fig. 4. Voltage deviations variations of Case3.

In this paper, a differential evolution (DE) optimization algorithm has been proposed, developed, and successfully applied to solve reactive power dispatch (RPD) problem. The RPD problem has been formulated as a constrained optimization problem where several objective functions have been considered to minimize power losses, to improve the voltage prole, and to enhance the voltage stability. The proposed approach has been tested and examined on the standard IEEE 30-bus test system. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed algorithm to solve RPD problem. Moreover, the results of the proposed DE algorithm have been compared to those reported in the literature. The comparison conrms the effectiveness and the superiority of the proposed DE approach over the classical and heuristic techniques in terms of solution quality. Acknowledgement

Table 3 Comparison of voltage deviations for different methods. Method Particle swarm optimization [1] Proposed algorithm Voltage deviations 0.2424 0.0911

Dr. M.A. Abido would like to acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals.

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464

463

Appendix A. L-index calculation For voltage stability evaluation, an indicator L-index is used. The indicator value varies in the range between 0 (the no load case) and 1 which corresponds to voltage collapse. The indicator uses bus voltage and network information provided by the load ow program.
Table A1 Load data. Bus no. Load P (p.u.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.000 0.217 0.024 0.076 0.942 0.000 0.228 0.300 0.000 0.058 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.062 0.082 Q (p.u.) 0.000 0.127 0.012 0.016 0.190 0.000 0.109 0.300 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.016 0.025 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Bus no. Load P (p.u.) 0.035 0.090 0.032 0.095 0.022 0.175 0.000 0.032 0.087 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.106 Q (p.u.) 0.018 0.058 0.009 0.034 0.007 0.112 0.000 0.016 0.067 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.019

Table A3 Generator data. Bus no. Cost coefcients a 1 2 5 8 11 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 2.00 1.75 1.00 3.25 3.00 3.00 c 0.00375 0.01750 0.06250 0.00834 0.02500 0.02500

For multi-node system: Ibus = Ybus Vbus (A.1)

By segregating the load buses (PQ) from generator buses (PV), Eq. (A.1) can be rewritten as IL IG VL IG = = Y1 Y3 Y2 Y4 VL VG IL VG (A.2)

H1 H2 H H4

(A.3)

where VL , IL is the voltages and currents for PQ buses; VG , IG is the voltages and currents for PV buses; H1 , H2 , H3 , and H4 is the submatrices generated from Ybus partial inversion. Let ok = V i H2ki V (A.4)

Table A2 Line data. Line no. From bus To bus Line impedance R (p.u.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 9 9 4 12 12 12 12 14 16 15 18 19 10 10 10 10 21 15 22 23 24 25 25 28 27 27 29 8 6 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 10 12 13 14 15 16 15 17 18 19 20 20 17 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 30 28 28 0.0192 0.0452 0.0570 0.0132 0.0472 0.0581 0.0119 0.0460 0.0267 0.0120 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1231 0.0662 0.0945 0.2210 0.0824 0.1070 0.0639 0.0340 0.0936 0.0324 0.0348 0.0727 0.0116 0.1000 0.1150 0.1320 0.1885 0.2544 0.1093 0.0000 0.2198 0.3202 0.2399 0.6360 0.0169 X (p.u.) 0.0575 0.1852 0.1737 0.0379 0.1983 0.1763 0.0414 0.1160 0.0820 0.0420 0.2080 0.5560 0.2080 0.1100 0.2560 0.1400 0.2559 0.1304 0.1987 0.1997 0.1932 0.2185 0.1292 0.0680 0.2090 0.0845 0.0749 0.1499 0.0236 0.2020 0.1790 0.2700 0.3292 0.3800 0.2087 0.3960 0.4153 0.6027 0.4533 0.2000 0.0599

where NG is the number of generators H2 = Y1 Y2 Lk = 1 + Vok Vk (A.5) (A.6)

where Lk is the L-index voltage stability indicator for bus k. Stability requires that Lk < 1 and must not be violated on a continuous basis. Hence a global system indicator L describing the
Table A4 The minimum and maximum limits for the control variables along with the initial settings. Min. P1 P2 P5 P8 P11 P13 V1 V2 V5 V8 V11 V13 T11 T12 T15 T36 Qc10 Qc12 Qc15 Qc17 Qc20 Qc21 Qc23 Qc24 Qc29 Power losses (MW) Voltage deviations Lmax 50 20 15 10 10 12 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max. 200 80 50 35 30 40 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Initial 99.24 80.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.078 1.069 1.032 1.068 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.842 1.1606 0.2144

464

A.A.A.E. Ela et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 458464 [11] S. Das, A. Abraham, A. Konar, Particle Swarm Optimization and Differential Evolution Algorithms: Technical Analysis, Applications and Hybridization Perspectives, Available at www.softcomputing.net/aciis.pdf. [12] D. Karaboga, S. Okdem, A simple and global optimization algorithm for engineering problems: differential evolution algorithm, Turk. J. Electr. Eng. 12 (1) (2004). [13] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution, a simple and efcient heuristic strategy for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim. 11 (1997) 341359. [14] J. Vesterstrm, R. Thomsen, A comparative study of differential evolution, particle swarm optimization, and evolutionary algorithms on numerical benchmark problems, in: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2004, pp. 980 987. [15] Zhenyu Yang, Ke Tang, Xin Yao, Differential evolution for high-dimensional function optimization, in: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2007), 2007, pp. 35233530. [16] J. Lampinen, A Bibliography of Differential Evolution Algorithm, Available at http://www.lut./jlampine/debiblio.htm. [17] D.G. Mayer, B.P. Kingborn, A.A. Archer, Differential evolutionan easy and efcient evolutionary algorithm for model optimization, Agric. Syst. 83 (2005) 315328. [18] M.D. Kapadi, R.D. Gudi, Optimal control of fed-batch fermentation involving multiple feeds using differential evolution, Process Biochem. 39 (11) (2004) 7091721. [19] B.V. Babu, P.G. Chakole, J.H.S. Mubeen, Differential Evolution Strategy for Optimal Design of Gas Transmission Network, Available at www.vsppub.com. [20] R. Balamurugan, S. Subramanian, Self-adaptive differential evolution based power economic dispatch of generators with valve-point effects and multiple fuel options, Comput. Sci. Eng. 1 (1) (2007) 1017. [21] G.A. Bakare, G. Krost, G.K. Venayagamoorthy, U.O. Aliyu, Differential evolution approach for reactive power optimization of Nigerian grid system, in: Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007, pp. 16. [22] L. Yong, S. Tao, Wu Dehua, Improved differential evolution for solving optimal reactive power ow, in: Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2009, pp. 14. [23] X. Zhang, W. Chen, C. Dai, A. Guo, Self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm for reactive power optimization, in: Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation, 2008, pp. 560564. [24] K. Vaisakh, P. Kanta Rao, Differential evolution based optimal reactive power dispatch for voltage stability enhancement, J. Theor. Appl. Inform. Technol. (2008) 638646. [25] M.A. Abido, Optimal power ow using particle swarm optimization, Electr. Power Energy Syst. 24 (7) (2002) 563571. [26] Z. Daniela, A comparative analysis of crossover variants in differential evolution, Comput. Sci. Inform. Technol. (2007) 171181. [27] A.A. Abou, E.L. Ela, M.A. Abido, S.R. Spea, Optimal power ow using differential evolution algorithm, Electr. Eng. 91 (2) (2009) 6978.

stability of the complete system is L = Lmax {Lk }, where {Lk } contains L indices of all load buses. In practice Lmax must be lower than a threshold value. The predetermined threshold value is specied at the planning stage depending on the system conguration and on the utility policy regarding the quality of service and the level of system decided allowable margin. The objective is to minimize Lmax , that is, Lmax = max Lk , k = 1, . . . , NL (A.7)

Appendix B. System data Data for IEEE 30-bus test system (100 MVA base) are given in Tables A1A4. References
[1] S. Durairaj, P.S. Kannan, D. Devaraj, Multi-objective VAR dispatch using particle swarm optimization, Emerg. Electr. Power Syst. 4 (2005) 1. [2] M.A. Abido, Multiobjective optimal VAR dispatch using strength pareto evolutionary algorithm, in: 2006 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre Hotel, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 1621, 2006. [3] P. Subburaj, N. Sudha, K. Rajeswari, K. Ramar, L. Ganesan, Optimum reactive power dispatch using genetic algorithm, Acad. Open Internet J. 21 (2007). [4] S. Durairaj, D. Devaraj, P.S. Kannan, Genetic algorithm applications to optimal reactive power dispatch with voltage stability enhancement, IE (I) J. EL 87 (2006) 4247. [5] K.Y. Lee, Y.M. Park, J.L. Ortiz, A united approach to optimal real and reactive power dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst PAS.104 (5) (1985) 11471153. [6] S. Granville, Optimal reactive power dispatch through interior point methods, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9 (1) (1994) 98105. [7] K. Iba, Reactive power optimization by genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9 (2) (1994) 685692. [8] Q.H. Wu, J.T. Ma, Power system optimal reactive power dispatch using evolutionary programming, IEEE Trans Power. Syst. 10 (3) (1995) 12431249. [9] C. Das Bhagwan, Patvardhan, A new hybrid evolutionary strategy for reactive power dispatch, Electr. Power Res. 65 (2003) 8390. [10] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential EvolutionA Simple and Efcient Adaptive Scheme for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces, Technical Report TR95-012, ICSI, 1995.