You are on page 1of 11

Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijepes

A new evolutionary computation technique for economic dispatch with security constraints
K.S. Swarup *, P. Rohit Kumar
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India Accepted 20 December 2005

Abstract This paper presents an efcient and reliable evolutionary based approach to solve the economic load dispatch (ELD) with security constraints. A new approach is proposed which employs attractive and repulsive particle swarm optimization (ARPSO) algorithm for ELD. Incorporation of ARPSO as a derivative-free optimization technique in solving ELD with security (voltages and line-ows) constraints signicantly relieves the assumptions imposed on the optimized objective function. The proposed approach has been implemented on three representative systems, i.e. IEEE 14 bus, IEEE 30 bus and IEEE 57 bus systems, respectively. The feasibility of the proposed method is demonstrated and the results are compared with linear programming, quadratic programming and genetic algorithm, respectively. The premature convergence problem, that is common in all evolutionary computation techniques, is solved in ARPSO by including the diversity factor in the Type 1 PSO algorithm. The developed algorithms are computationally faster (in terms of the number of load ows carried out) than the other methods because only one run is required. q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Power system optimization; Economic load dispatch; Particle swarm optimization; Line-ow; Voltage constraints

1. Introduction Economic load dispatch (ELD) pertains to optimum generation scheduling of an available generation in an interconnected power system to minimize the cost of generation subject to relevant system constraints. In this paper, the line-ow and bus voltage constraints, which are so important for any practical implementation of ELD, are taking into consideration. The present work solves the ELD problem with security constraints through effective application of ARPSO, considering the system transmission losses, power balance equation as an equality constraint, limits on the active power generations of the units and limits on the currents in different lines as the inequality constraints. Four test systems, i.e. IEEE 14 bus, IEEE 30 bus, IEEE 57 bus and IEEE 118 bus systems [1] have been considered for the investigation. A wide variety of optimization techniques have been applied in solving the ELD problems such as linear programming, quadratic programming and genetic algorithm. Heuristic algorithm such
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: C91 44 2257 4402. E-mail address: swarup@ee.iitm.ac.in (K.S. Swarup).

0142-0615/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2006.01.001

as genetic algorithm has been recently proposed for solving the ELD problem with line-ows constraints. The premature convergence of GA degrades its performance and reduces its search capability. We introduce the attractive and repulsive PSO (ARPSO) in trying to overcome the problem of premature convergence. It uses a diversity measure to control the swarm. The result is an algorithm that alternates between phases of attraction and repulsion. Classical optimization methods are highly sensitive to starting points and frequently converge to local optimum solution or diverge altogether. Linear programming methods are fast and reliable but the main disadvantage associated with the piecewise linear cost approximation. Nonlinear programming methods have a problem of convergence and algorithmic complexity. Newton based algorithm have a problem in handling large number of inequality constraint. Recently, a new evolutionary computation technique, called particle swarm optimization has been proposed and introduced [2,3]. This technique combines social psychology principles in sociocognition human agents and evolutionary computations. PSO has been motivated by the behavior of the organisms such as sh schooling and bird ocking. The particle swarm is an algorithm for nding optimal regions of complex search spaces through the interaction of individuals in a population of particles. Particle swarm adaptation has been shown to

274

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

Nomenclature PD PL FT FT max PGi Pmin Gi ai, bi, ci max IJ K1 K2 K3 rand total system demand total transmission loss total fuel cost augmented fuel cost maximum operating limit of the ith generator minimum operating limit of the ith generator cost coefcient of the ith generator maximum magnitude of current in Jth line line loading penalty factor penalty factor for the slack generation penalty factor for bus voltages random number between 0 and 4/2 4i 4 c Yij Gj k Vij k Xij Na d Ns S control factor social coefcient constriction coefcient individual particles best tness yet encountered best value so far in the group velocity of agent i at iteration k current position of agent i at iteration k number of intervals diversity dimension total population of particles

successfully optimize a wide range of continuous function [2,47]. The algorithm, which is based on a metaphor of social interaction, searches a space by adjusting the trajectories of individual vectors, called particles as they are conceptualized as moving points in points in multi-dimensional space. The individual particles are drawn stochastically towards the positions of their own previous best performances and the best previous performance of their neighbors. Since, the algorithm inception, two notable improvements on the initial PSO have been introduced which attempt to strike a balance between two conditions. The rst introduced by Eberhart and Shi uses an extra inertia weight term which is used to scale down the velocity of each particle and this term is typically decreased linearly throughout a run [5]. The second version introduced by Clerc involves a constriction factor in which the entire right side of the formula is weighted by a coefcient. Clercs generalized particle swarm model allows an innite number of ways in which the balance between exploration and convergence can be controlled. The constriction factor (Type 1 PSO) approach is being modied in ARPSO for handling premature convergence problem.

and inequality constraints


max Pmin Gi % PGi % PGi min max VL i % VL i % VL i

(3)

IJ % Ijmax ;

j Z 1;2;.; NL

(4)

3. Attractive and repulsive particle swarm optimization (ARPSO) 3.1. Overview The basic particle swarm optimizer (PSO) is a populationbased optimization method rst proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart [4,5]. Some of the attractive features of the PSO include the ease of implementation and the fact that no gradient information is required. It can be used to solve a wide array of different optimization problems. Like evolutionary algorithms, PSO technique conducts search using a population of particles, corresponding to individuals. Each particle represents a candidate solution to the problem at hand. In as PSO system, particle changes their positions by ying around in a multidimensional search space until computational limitations are exceeded. In particle swam optimization, a particle is dened as a moving point in hyperspace. For each particle, at the current time step, a record is kept of the position, velocity, and the best position found in the search space so far. Attractive and repulsive PSO is basically a basic PSO with constriction factor and diversity factor in its velocity updating equation. 3.2. Algorithm The origins of the PSO are best described as sociologically inspired, since the original algorithm was based on the sociological behavior associated with bird ocking [3]. The algorithm maintains a population of particles, where each particle represents a potential solution to an optimization problem. Let S be the size of the swarm, each particle i can be represented as an object with several characteristics. These characteristics are assigned the following symbols:

2. ELD problem statement with constraints The primary objective of the ELD problem with line-ow and voltage constraints is to determine the most economic loading of the generators such that the load demand in the power system can be meet with all the line loading is in their limit. Consider a system having N buses and NL lines. Let NG buses have sources for power generation. The objective is to determine the optimal set of generation PGi (iZ1, 2,., NG) to minimize the total cost of generation FT given by FT Z
NG X iZ1

0:5ai P2 Gi C bi PGi C Ci

Unit=h

(1)

subject to equality constraint


NG X PG i K PD K P L Z 0 iZ1

(2)

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

275

V(t+1)

X(t+1)

personal best position is presented in Eq. (5): ( if FT Xi t C 1 R FT Yi t Yi t ; Yi t C 1 Z Xi t C 1; if FT Xi t C 1 ! FT Yi t

(5)

V(t)

Vgbest

X(t)

Vpbest

Fig. 1. Concept of Modication of a search.

Global best (Gbest). The Gbest offers a faster rate of convergence at the expense of robustness. This Gbest maintains only a single best solution, called the global best particle, across the entire particle in the swarm. This particle acts as an attractor, pulling all the particles towards it. Eventually all particles will converge to this position, so if it is not updated regularly, the swarm may converge prematurely. Control parameters (41 and 42). There are two important facts to consider, when setting 41 and 42. The rst fact is that the relation between the two values decides the point of attraction, which is given by: 41 Yi t C 42 Gt 41 C 42 If 41[42, the particle i will be much more attracted to the best found position found by itself, Yi(t), rather than the best position found by the neighborhood, G(t), and vice versa if 41/42. In the other extreme case, where 41Z0, the particle own cognitive learning part is 0, and the whole swarm is attracted to one single point only, namely G(t). Essentially, the swarm now turns into one big hill-climber. If 41Z42, each particle will be attracted to the average Yi(t) and G(t). Since 41 expresses how much the particle trusts its own past experience, it is called the cognitive parameter, and since 42 expresses how much it trusts the swarm, it is called the social parameter. In this implementation, the control parameters are equal, i.e. 41Z42. Thus, setting the control variables high, enables the swarm to react rapidly to changes in the search, whereas if they are set low, the particles will react slowly and move in waves of huge-magnitude and low-frequencies. Constriction factor. This factor may help in sure convergence. A low value of c facilitates rapid convergence and little explorationhigh values give slow convergence and much exploration. Mathematician Maurice Clerc, who has proposed the constriction factor [8]. He has studied the particle swarm system by means of second-order differential equations. In doing so, it is possible to determine under which conditions the swarm will converge. In the constriction model, we can set c as a function of 41 and 42, so that convergence is ensuredeven without Vmax. An additional parameter k, which controls the convergence speed of the particles to the point of attraction, is added instead of c. The supposed advantage of this shift from c to k, is that k is more clearly and reliably can control swarm behavior: if k is close to 0, we get fast convergence (almost hillclimbing behavior), and if k is near 1 we get the slowest possible convergence with a high degree of exploration, which is desired for strongly multi-modal problems. The constriction factor in the velocity update equation is represented by 2k cZ p 2 K4 K 42 K44 (6)

Xi the current position of the particle; Vi the current velocity of the particle; Yi the personal best position of the particle. Fig. 1 shows a searching point by PSO. A population of particles is initialized with random positions and Xi velocities and Vi a function FT is evaluated, using the particles positional coordinates as input values. Positions and velocities are adjusted and the function evaluated with the new coordinates at each time step. When a particle discovers a pattern that is better than any it has found previously, it stores the coordinates in a vector Yi. The difference between the best point found by a particular agent and the individuals current positions is stochastically added to the current velocity, causing the trajectory to oscillate around that point. Further, each particle is dened within the context of a topological neighborhood comprising itself and some other particles in the population. The stochastically weighted difference between the neighborhoods the best position Gj and the individuals current position is also added to its velocity, adjusting it for the next time step. These adjustments to the particles movement through the space cause it to search around the two best positions. Particle (X). It is a candidate solution represented by an m-dimensional vector, where m is the number of optimized parameters. At time t, the ith particle Xi(t) can be described as Xi(t)Z[Xi1(t),Xi2(t),.,Xin(t)], where Xs are the optimized parameters and Xik(t) is the position of the ith particle with respect to the kth dimension; i.e. the value of the kth optimized parameter in the ith candidate solution. Population, pop(t). It is a set of n particle at time t, i.e. pop(t)Z[X1(t),X2(t),.,Xn(t)]. Swarm. It is an apparently disorganized population of moving particles that tend to cluster together while each particle seems to be moving in a random direction [4]. Personal best (Pbest). The personal best position associated with the particle i is the best position that the particle has visited (a previous value of Xi), yielding the highest tness value for that particle. For a minimization task, a position yielding the smaller function value is regarded as having tness. The symbol FT will be used to denote the objective function that is being minimized. The update equation for the

276

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

Fig. 2. Flow chart for ELD problem using ARPSO.

and 4 Z 41 C 42 ; 4O 4 (7)

Let 41 Z 42 Z 2:05; substituting 4 Z 41 C 42 Z 4:1 Diversity factor (d). When an optimum (local or global) is found by one particle the other particles will be drawn towards it. If all particles end up in this optimum, they will stay at this optimum without much chance to escape. This simply happens because of the way the basic PSO (in particular the velocity update formula) works. If the identied optimum is only local it would be advantageous to let some of the particles explore other areas of the search space while the remaining particles stay at this optimum to ne-tune the solution. In this model, we tried to increase the diversity when particles started to cluster. For this, we added a diversity factor to each particle in order to

check whether two particles would collide. If they collide, action can be taken to make them bounce (repulsion) off to avoid the collision and thus the clustering. For Type 1 PSO only attraction in between the particles is present so diversity factor is absent v S u Ns X uX 1 t diversityd Z Xij KYij 2 S iZ1 jZ1

(8)

Particle velocity V(t). It is the velocity of the moving particles represented by an m-dimensional vector. At time t, the ith particle velocity Vi(t) can be described as Vi(t)Z[Vi1(t), Vi2(t),., Vin(t)], where Vik(t) is the velocity components of the ith particle with respect to the kth dimension. The velocity update step is specied separately for each dimension j21,.,

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

277

n, so that Vij denotes the jth dimension of the velocity vector associated with the ith particle. The velocity update equation is then Vij t C 1 Z cVij t C dir41 randYij t KXij t C 42 randGj t KXij t If (dirO0 and: diversity!dLow) dirZK1; If (dir!0 and; diversityOdHigh) dirZ1; For Type 1 PSO dirZ1. From the denition of the velocity of that equation it is clear that 42 regulates the maximum step service in the direction of the global best particle, and 41 regulates the step size in the direction of the personal best position of the particle. The value of Vij is lamped to the range [KVimax, Vmax] to reduce the likelihood that the particle might leave the search space. The position of each particle is updated using the new velocity vector for that particle, so that Xi t C 1 Z Xi t C Vi t C 1 (10) (9)

Vkmax Z

Xkmax KXkmin ; Na

Na Z Number of intervals

(11)

(4) Evaluate the tness for each particle according to the objective function (including penalty functions). The tness function includes the total generation cost FT and the security penalty functions. The constraints include the line-ow limits and the bus voltages at each bus.
Augmented costFT FT nl X iZ1 NL X iZ1 lim 2 VLi KVL i

Z FT C K1

2 Ii KIimax 2 C K2 PG1 KPlim G1

C K3

(12)

Stopping criteria. These are the conditions under which the search process will terminate. In this study, the search will terminate if one of the following criteria is satised: (a) the number of iterations since the last change of the best solution is greater than a pre specied number or (b) the number of iterations reaches the maximum allowable number. 3.3. Flow chart for ELD problem using ARPSO Fig. 2 shows the complete ow of program. 3.4. Implementation The implementation of ELD using ARPSO corresponding to the ow chart consists of 13 steps that are described below: (1) Choose the population size and number of generation (number of iterations). (2) Select the real power of each generator except slack bus generator in a system, as state variables (Xi). (3) Set the time counter tZ0 and generate randomly n particles {Xi(0), iZ1,., n} where Xik(0) is generated by randomly selecting a values with uniform probability over the kth optimized parameter search space [Xmin, Xmax]. Similarly generate randomly initial velocities of all particles { V i(0), i Z 1, .,n } where V i(0) Z [ Vi 1(0), Vi2(0),.,Vin(0)]. Vik(0) is generated by randomly selecting a value with uniform probability over the kth dimension [KVkmax, Vkmax]. Execute load ow considering the unit generations for each particle except for the slack bus, in order to evaluate the system transmission loss, slack bus generation and violation for the line-ow limits and voltages at each bus. Maximum velocity of a particular dimension is given by Eq. (11)

(5) Set Gbest_counterZ1. (6) For each particle, as its best position, say it as Pbest set and assign Gbest that corresponds the Xi(0)Z[Xi1(0), Xi2(0),., Xin(0)] particle shown by Gbest_counter from Pbest. (7) Update the time counter tZtC1. (8) Calculate the diversity factor (d) and value of dir (dLowZ 5!10K4) and (dHighZ0.25). (9) Using the global best and the individual best of each particle, the ith particle velocity in the kth dimension are updated according to Eq. (9). It is worth mentioning that the second term represents the cognitive part of PSO where the particle changes its velocity based on its own thinking and memory. The third term represents the social part of PSO where the particle changes its velocity based on the socialpsychological adaptive of knowledge. If a particle violates the velocity limits, set its velocity equal to the limit. (10) Based on the updated velocities, each particle changes its position according to Eq. (10). If a particle violates the
Table 1 Base case and optimum result for different systems Case study Base case generations and losses (in MW) Optimum generation and losses w/o line-ow constraints P1Z160.3470 P2Z68.8831 P6Z38.9419 LossesZ9.1720 P1Z165.7690 P2Z74.9465 P3Z53.1556 LossesZ10.4700 P1Z410.970 P3Z100.000 P8Z406.083 P12Z356.120 LossesZ20.200 Load (MW) Optimum cost w/o line-ow constraint (in units/h) 1135.6780

IEEE 14

P1Z210.6600 P2Z40.0000 P6Z20.0000 LossesZ11.6600 P1Z238.4800 P2Z40.0000 P11Z20.0000 LossesZ15.0800 P1Z478.6570 P3Z40.0000 P8Z450.0000 P12Z310.0000 LossesZ27.8570

259.0

IEEE 30

283.4

1245.2800

IEEE 57

1250.8

6448.1122

278 Table 2 Bus results for 14-bus system Line no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Vmin (p.u.) 1.060 1.045 1.010 0.950 0.950 1.070 0.950 1.090 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 V (p.u.) 1.0600 1.0450 1.0100 1.0212 1.0241 1.0700 1.0614 1.0900 1.0536 1.0487 1.0553 1.0552 1.0497 1.0337

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

Vmax (p.u.) 1.060 1.045 1.010 1.100 1.100 1.070 1.100 1.090 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100

Pmin (p.u.) 0.500 0.200 0.945 0.478 0.076 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.295 0.090 0.035 0.061 0.135 0.149

P (p.u.) 1.651 0.742 0.945 0.478 0.076 0.292 0.000 0.000 0.295 0.090 0.035 0.061 0.135 0.149

Pmax (p.u.) 2.0 1.0

constraints for the 14 bus system as obtained by particle swarm optimization. Table 2 shows the bus voltages in optimal case. Table 3 shows the base case line-ows and the line-ows in the optimum case for the generations obtained in Table 1 ignoring line-ow constraints for the IEEE 14 bus system.

1.0

position limits in any dimension, set its position at the proper limit. (11) Personal best updating according to Eq. (5). (12) After rst iteration the Gbest_counter update itself according to the minimum value of the tness function from the Pbest set. (13) When any stopping criteria satised program stop. Else go to step 7.

4. Results and analysis 4.1. IEEE 14 bus system Table 1 shows the base case generations, optimum generations for the three generators ignoring line-ow
Table 3 Line-ows for IEEE 14 bus system Line designation 12 15 23 24 25 34 45 47 49 56 611 612 613 78 79 910 914 1011 1213 1314 Base case line-ow (p.u.) 1.3566 0.6399 0.6788 0.4879 0.3472 0.2588 0.6237 0.3012 0.1441 0.3408 0.1092 0.0803 0.1955 0.1622 0.2337 0.0553 0.0786 0.0744 0.0205 0.0784 Line-ow w/o constraint 0.9935 0.5233 0.6642 0.4588 0.3203 0.2721 0.6089 0.2711 0.1247 0.2456 0.1396 0.0836 0.2098 0.1624 0.2075 0.0691 0.0690 0.1065 0.0240 0.0982 Loading w/o constraint (%) 73.2346 81.7784 97.8491 94.0357 92.2523 105.1391 97.6271 90.0066 86.5371 72.0657 127.8388 104.1096 107.3146 100.1233 88.7890 124.9548 87.7863 143.1452 117.0732 125.2551 Line-ow with constraint 1.0105 0.5509 0.6769 0.4851 0.3491 0.2597 0.6000 0.2869 0.1350 0.2911 0.1232 0.0818 0.2021 0.1621 0.2211 0.0599 0.0735 0.0892 0.0221 0.0876 Loading with constraint (%) 74.5098 86.0916 99.7201 99.4261 100.5472 100.3478 96.2001 95.2523 93.6849 85.4167 112.8205 101.8680 103.3760 99.9383 94.6085 108.3183 93.5115 119.8925 107.8049 111.7347

Fig. 3. Performance for PSO for IEEE 14 bus system: (a) economic cost for a population size of 10; (b) total cost for different initial population set; (c) performance for PSO for different population sizes.

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283 Table 4 Cost of generation obtained by different techniques for IEEE 14 bus system S. no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Techniques used Based on exact co-ordination equation Based on modied co-ordination equations (1-d,1-V schemes) [11] Based on modied co-ordination equations (1-d schemes) [11] GA [12] ARPSO Total cost of generation (in $/h) 1138.148 1136.776 1136.804 1136.64 1136.532 Table 6 Line-ows results for IEEE 30 bus system Line designation 12 13 24 34 25 26 46 57 67 68 69 610 911 910 412 1213 1214 1215 1216 1415 1617 1518 1819 1920 1020 1017 1021 1022 2122 1523 2224 2324 2425 2526 2527 2728 2729 2730 2930 828 628 Base case line-ow (p.u.) 1.5495 0.7161 0.3979 0.6924 0.7683 0.5327 0.6304 0.2078 0.3983 0.2908 0.2451 0.1375 0.2340 0.3429 0.3993 0.0936 0.0746 0.1682 0.0586 0.0139 0.0218 0.0496 0.0177 0.0809 0.1032 0.0817 0.1853 0.0896 0.0186 0.0515 0.0758 0.0179 0.0165 0.0418 0.0375 0.1672 0.0626 0.0711 0.0374 0.0124 0.1772 Line-ow w/o constraints 1.0237 0.5471 0.3513 0.5246 0.7315 0.4527 0.4754 0.2389 0.4344 0.2878 0.1907 0.0997 0.5167 0.4659 0.3403 0.0932 0.0701 0.1492 0.0444 0.0119 0.0305 0.0360 0.0159 0.0981 0.1203 0.1089 0.1966 0.0973 0.0241 0.0460 0.0996 0.0182 0.0173 0.0418 0.0245 0.1506 0.0626 0.0711 0.0374 0.0111 0.1656 Line-ow with constraints 0.9889 0.5432 0.3573 0.4991 0.7342 0.4588 0.4757 0.2362 0.4316 0.2878 0.1899 0.1010 0.5000 0.4619 0.3419 0.0931 0.0702 0.1497 0.0445 0.0119 0.0297 0.0363 0.0155 0.0976 0.1198 0.1081 0.1963 0.0971 0.0237 0.0461 0.0988 0.0181 0.0170 0.0418 0.0249 0.1512 0.0626 0.0711 0.0374 0.0110 0.1660

279

Max. ow (p.u.) 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Table 3 shows the several lines, i.e. lines 34, 611, 612, 6 13, 78, 910, 1011, 1213, 1314 exceed their receptive base case values. The objective now is to solve the ELD problem considering three case studies for which line-ows do not exceed 120, 110, and 105% of their base case values. Table 3 provides ARPSO results for an optimum population sizes and number of generations considering line-ows not exceeding 120% of the corresponding base case values and the voltages at all bus must lie under the limit. Results reveal that the overall minimum cost of generation of $1136.532/h is achieved for a population size of 10, number of generations of 15. The convergence factor f1 and f2 is equal to 2.05 and kZ1. These

Table 5 Bus results for IEEE 30 bus system S. no. 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. Vmin (p.u.) 1.060 1.045 0.950 0.950 1.010 0.950 0.950 1.010 0.950 0.950 1.082 0.950 1.071 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 V (p.u.) 1.0600 1.0450 1.0254 1.0171 1.0100 1.0147 1.0051 1.0100 1.0537 1.0510 1.0820 1.0580 1.0710 1.0433 1.0399 1.0482 1.0450 1.0317 1.0300 1.0345 1.0384 1.0388 1.0299 1.0250 1.0191 1.0014 1.0241 1.0104 1.0043 0.9928 Vmax (p.u.) 1.060 1.045 1.100 1.100 1.010 1.100 1.100 1.010 1.100 1.100 1.082 1.100 1.071 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 Pmin (p.u.) 0.5000 0.2000 0.0240 0.0760 0.9420 0.0000 0.2280 0.3000 0.0000 0.0580 0.2000 0.1120 0.0000 0.0062 0.0820 0.0350 0.0900 0.0320 0.0950 0.0220 0.1750 0.0000 0.0320 0.0870 0.0000 0.0350 0.0000 0.0000 0.0240 0.1060 P (p.u.) 1.616 0.801 0.024 0.076 0.942 0.000 0.228 0.300 0.000 0.058 0.522 0.112 0.000 0.062 0.082 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 Pmax (p.u.) 3.0 1.5

1.5

Table 7 Comparison of generation costs for IEEE 30 bus system S. no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Techniques used Fletchers QP method [9] LP based on revised simplex [10] Based on exact co-ordination equation Based on modied co-ordination equations (1-d, 1-V schemes) [11] Based on modied co-ordination equations (1-d schemes) [11] GA [12] ARPSO Total cost of generation (in unit/h) 1244.426 1245.287 1245.709 1246.694 1246.813 1245.560 1245.516

280

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283 Table 8 Bus results for IEEE 57-bus system S. no. 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. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Vmin (p.u.) 1.040 1.010 0.985 0.950 0.950 0.980 0.950 1.005 0.980 0.950 0.950 1.015 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 V (p.u.) 1.0400 1.0100 0.9850 0.9808 0.9765 0.9800 0.9842 0.1.0050 0.9800 0.9866 0.9741 1.0150 0.9792 0.9706 0.9884 1.0149 1.0192 1.0007 0.9704 0.9642 1.0089 1.0102 1.0088 0.9995 0.9828 0.9592 0.9816 0.9966 1.0100 0.9630 0.9364 0.9505 0.9482 0.9597 0.9667 0.9763 0.9854 1.0133 0.9833 0.9733 0.9965 0.9668 0.0098 0.0172 0.0360 0.0603 0.0338 0.0279 0.0371 0.0242 0.0531 0.9803 0.9709 0.9964 0.0311 0.9686 0.9650 Vmax (p.u.) 1.040 1.010 0.985 1.100 1.100 0.980 1.100 1.005 0.980 1.100 1.100 1.015 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 1.100 Pmin (p.u.) 0.050 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.750 0.000 0.500 1.210 0.050 0.000 0.500 0.180 0.105 0.220 0.430 0.420 0.272 0.033 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.093 0.046 0.170 0.036 0.058 0.016 0.038 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.071 0.020 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.000 0.180 0.210 0.180 0.049 0.200 0.041 0.068 0.076 0.067 P (p.u.) 3.991 0.030 0.720 0.000 0.130 0.750 0.000 4.301 1.210 0.050 0.000 3.710 0.180 0.105 0.220 0.430 0.420 0.272 0.033 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.093 0.046 0.170 0.036 0.058 0.016 0.038 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.071 0.020 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.000 0.180 0.210 0.180 0.049 0.200 0.041 0.068 0.076 0.067 Pmax (p.u.) 6.0 1.0

6.0

5.0

Fig. 4. Performance for total cost of PSO for IEEE 30 bus system.

factor results in fast convergence of the agent towards the solution. The penalty factor is modied linearly in iteration when violation is present. Fig. 3a shows the variation of the economic cost with the generations (iterations). Fig. 3b and c shows the total economic cost with different population size and different initial random population set. Tables 2 and 3 provide the bus voltages and the line-ows for the optimum situation. It is clearly seen from Table 3 that none of the line-ows violates 120% of its base case value and voltages at each bus lie in the limit, signifying that the algorithm developed works well for the postulated problem. Table 4 gives a comparative listing of the cost of generation obtained by several techniques. 4.2. IEEE 30 bus system Table 1 provides the base case generations of the three generators. Table 5 provides the generation limits of the generators and the limits of the bus voltages. Table 6 provides the load ow results for the IEEE 30 bus system providing information about base case line-ows and the corresponding maximum ow in p.u. The 30 bus system has three generators and 41 lines. From Table 7, it is seen that the overall minimum cost of generation of $1245.516/h is achieved for a population size of 20 and number of generations 35 (number of load owsZ20!35Z 700). Table 6 provides line-ows (initially lines 12, 3 4, 911 was overloaded) and Table 5 provides the bus voltages for the optimum case achieved. Table 7 gives a comparative listing of the cost of generation by different techniques. It is seen that the cost of generation achieved by ARPSO is comparable to the gures obtained by other techniques, through it is not the minimum. This is because we have not explored globally the simultaneous optimum values for the ARPSO parameter. It may be mentioned that both QP and LP have the same base case line-ows listed in Table 6 as that for ARPSO. Fig. 4 shows the variation in the economic cost, at the time of searching by the particles. In this gure, as the generation (iteration) increases the particle tends towards the solution.

4.3. IEEE 57 bus system Table 1 shows the base case generations, optimum generations for the four generators ignoring line-ow

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283 Table 9 Line-ows for IEEE 57 bus systems S. no. 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. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Lines FT 12 23 34 45 46 67 68 89 910 911 912 913 1314 1315 115 116 117 315 418 418 56 78 1012 1113 1213 1216 1217 1415 1819 1920 2021 2122 2223 2324 2425 2425 2426 2627 2728 2829 729 2530 3031 3132 3233 3234 3435 3536 3637 3738 3739 3640 2238 1141 4142 4143 3844 1545 1446 4647 4748 Base case line-ow (p.u.) 1.2589 0.9680 0.6146 0.1444 0.1485 0.1815 0.4359 1.7856 0.1897 0.1354 0.1266 0.0237 0.2561 0.5032 1.4811 0.7622 0.8990 0.3778 0.1414 0.1825 0.0582 0.8003 0.2587 0.1081 0.6244 0.3432 0.4910 0.7153 0.0483 0.0141 0.0588 0.0114 0.1005 0.0362 0.0728 0.0699 0.8622 0.1111 0.2056 0.2550 0.7079 0.0902 0.0486 0.0220 0.0448 0.0769 0.0865 0.1549 0.2060 0.2545 0.0492 0.0550 0.1120 0.0940 0.0949 0.1201 0.2462 0.5803 1.2921 0.5122 0.2080 Line-ow without constraints 1.1292 0.7203 0.7801 0.2122 0.2454 0.1112 0.3584 1.5307 0.1243 0.0832 0.1171 0.0455 0.2503 0.4967 1.2889 0.6622 0.7992 0.5869 0.1426 0.1840 0.1119 0.7117 0.2991 0.1662 0.5957 0.2418 0.3902 0.7120 0.0506 0.0161 0.0594 0.0096 0.1118 0.0474 0.0721 0.0693 0.8511 0.0974 0.1910 0.2411 0.6862 0.0893 0.0478 0.0233 0.0448 0.0782 0.0877 0.1561 0.2079 0.2570 0.0498 0.0556 0.1209 0.0930 0.0939 0.1189 0.2497 0.5835 1.2956 0.5152 0.2104 Loading without constraints (%) 89.6974 74.4112 126.9281 146.9529 165.2525 61.2672 82.2207 85.7247 65.5245 61.4476 92.4961 191.9831 97.7353 98.7083 87.0232 86.8801 88.8988 155.3467 100.8487 100.8219 192.2680 88.9292 115.6165 153.7465 95.4036 70.4545 79.4705 99.5387 104.7619 114.1844 101.0204 84.2105 111.2438 130.9392 99.0385 99.1416 98.7126 87.6688 92.8988 94.5490 96.9346 99.0022 98.3539 105.9091 100.0000 101.6905 101.3873 100.7747 100.9223 100.9823 101.2195 101.0909 107.9464 98.9362 98.9463 99.0008 101.4216 100.5514 100.2709 100.5857 101.1538 Line-ow with constraints 1.1437 0.7523 0.6493 0.1591 0.1695 0.1672 0.4176 1.6386 0.1401 0.1148 0.1160 0.0051 0.2110 0.4179 1.2530 0.6108 0.7479 0.4533 0.1412 0.1822 0.0675 0.7761 0.2950 0.1295 0.5909 0.1895 0.3383 0.6454 0.0478 0.0137 0.0588 0.0119 0.1047 0.0401 0.0724 0.0696 0.8584 0.1055 0.1998 0.2494 0.6968 0.0897 0.0482 0.0226 0.0448 0.0774 0.0870 0.1554 0.2059 0.2542 0.0489 0.0547 0.1166 0.0944 0.0954 0.1206 0.2314 0.5691 1.2914 0.5107 0.2069 Loading with constraints (%)

281

88.4780 78.4282 103.4723 101.4670 102.1025 98.5666 98.1653 85.2951 95.0413 97.9413 98.9434 98.1407 95.4906 91.4671 77.1950 84.8570 84.8920 107.5488 99.9784 99.9726 100.9276 97.5774 103.6262 102.1411 96.6506 84.6321 84.7276 93.0062 99.9488 99.9599 99.9999 100.0486 100.4209 100.3907 99.9648 99.9721 99.6210 99.4421 99.4188 99.4431 98.8887 99.9526 99.9589 100.0581 100.0006 100.0541 100.0526 100.0504 99.9944 99.9660 99.9746 99.9684 100.4574 100.0449 100.0528 100.0532 98.5157 98.8777 99.9255 99.8517 99.8887 (continued on next page)

282 Table 9 (continued ) S. no. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Lines FT 4849 4950 5051 1051 1349 2952 5253 5354 5455 1143 4445 4056 5641 5642 3957 5756 3849 3848 955

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283

Base case line-ow (p.u.) 0.0696 0.1028 0.1267 0.9663 0.4171 0.1792 0.1281 0.0905 0.1333 0.2673 0.3608 0.0343 0.0565 0.0223 0.0410 0.0302 0.1123 0.2557 0.4572

Line-ow without constraints 0.0684 0.1016 0.1278 0.9683 0.4210 0.1748 0.1234 0.0933 0.1364 0.2666 0.3642 0.0354 0.0553 0.0214 0.0418 0.0292 0.1123 0.2580 0.4610

Loading without constraints (%) 98.2759 98.8327 100.8682 100.2070 100.9350 97.5446 96.3310 103.0939 102.3256 99.7381 100.9424 103.2070 97.8761 95.9641 101.9512 96.6887 100.0000 100.8995 100.8311

Line-ow with constraints 0.0655 0.0955 0.1343 0.9762 0.4239 0.1751 0.1236 0.0930 0.1361 0.2677 0.3463 0.0337 0.0571 0.0228 0.0406 0.0307 0.1129 0.2587 0.4610

Loading with constraints (%) 99.5919 99.2679 100.7640 100.9950 100.6782 99.5863 99.5502 100.2509 100.2788 100.0437 98.5540 99.9400 100.0564 100.0493 99.9633 100.0483 100.0570 100.3038 100.3811

Table 10 Cost of generation obtained by different techniques for IEEE 57 bus system S. no. 1. 2. Techniques used (without security constraints) Quadratic programming [11] ARPSO Total cost of generation (in unit/h) 6523.47 6448.1122

Table 11 Cost of generation obtained by different techniques for IEEE 57 bus system S. no. 1. Techniques used (with security constraints) ARPSO Total cost of generation (in unit/h) 6513.80

Fig. 5. Performance for total cost of PSO for IEEE 57 bus system.

constraints for the 57 bus system as obtained by ARPSO. Table 8 provides the generation limits of the generators and the limits of the bus voltages of 57 bus system. Table 9 shows the base case line-ows and the line-ows in the optimum case for the generations obtained in Table 1 ignoring line-ow constraints. Table 9 shows several lines 34, 45, 46, 913, 2324 exceeds their line limit (more than 120%) with respect to base case values. Table 10 provides PSO results for an optimum population sizes and number of generations considering line-ows not exceeding 120% of the corresponding base case values and the voltages at all bus must lie under the limit. Results reveal that the overall minimum cost of generation of $6448.1122/h is achieved for a population size of 20, number of generations of 10 (number of load owsZ20!10Z200) when line limits are not considered. When line-ow and bus voltages is taking into consideration the overall minimum cost of generation of $6513.812/h is achieved (Table 11) for a population size of 20, number of generation 30 (number of load owsZ20!30Z600), Fig. 5 shows the variation of the economic cost with the generations (iterations). Table 9 provides the line-ows and Table 8 provides the bus voltages for this optimum situation. It is clearly seen from Table 9 that none of the line-ows violates 120% of its base case value and voltages at each bus lie in the limit, signifying that the algorithm developed works well for the postulated problem. Table 10 gives a comparative listing of the cost of generation obtained by several techniques. Examine Table 10, it is seen that the cost of generation through ARPSO while comparable to other costs, it is the least. Studies have also been carried out for line-ow violations not exceeding 110 and 105% of the corresponding base case values.

K.S. Swarup, P.R. Kumar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (2006) 273283 Table 12 Complete results of ELD using ARPSO for different case studies Case study Base case generations and losses (in MW) Optimum generation and losses with line-ow and voltage constraints (in MW) P1Z165.1000 P2Z74.2000 P6Z29.2000 LossesZ9.5000 P1Z161.6000 P2Z80.1000 P3Z52.2000 LossesZ10.6000 P1Z399.1000 P3Z72.0000 P8Z430.1000 P12Z371.0000 LossesZ21.4000 Load (MW) Optimum cost with line-ow constraints (in unit/h) 1136.532

283

Appendix A. Cost function data for different cases


Bus no. IEEE 14 bus 1 2 6 IEEE 30 bus 1 2 11 IEEE 57 bus 1 3 8 12 c (Unit/h) 150.0 44.40 40.6 150.0 44.40 40.6 105.0 44.00 95.00 40.6 b (Unit/MW h) 2.45 3.51 3.89 2.45 3.51 3.89 2.45 3.89 2.85 3.51 a (Unit/MW2 h) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

IEEE 14

P1Z210.6600 P2Z40.0000 P6Z20.0000 LossesZ11.6600 P1Z238.4800 P2Z40.0000 P11Z20.0000 LossesZ15.0800 P1Z478.6570 P3Z40.0000 P8Z450.0000 P12Z310.0000 LossesZ27.8570

259.0

IEEE 30

283.4

1245.516

IEEE 57

1250.8

6513.800

References
[1] Sasson AM, Merill HM. Some applications of optimization techniques to power system problems. Proc IEEE 1974;62:95972. [2] Angeline P. Using selection of improve particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Anchorage; May 1998. p. 8489. [3] Kennedy J, The particle swarm: social adaptation of knowledge. Proceedings of 1997 international conference on evolutionary computation, Indianapolis; April 1997. p. 3038. [4] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw Aust 1995;4:1948. [5] Shi Y, Eberhart R. A modied particle swarm optimizer. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Anchorage; May 1998. p. 6973. [6] Zhenya H, et al. Extracting rules from fuzzy neural network by particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on evolutionary computation, Anchorage; May 1998. p. 747. [7] Kennedy J, Spears W. Matching algorithm to problems: an experimental test of the particle swarm optimization and some genetic algorithms on the multimodal problem generator. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Anchorage; May 1998. p. 7883. [8] Clerc M, Kennedy J. The particle swarmexplosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6:5873. [9] Nanda J, Kothari DP, Srivastava SC. New optimal power-dispatch algorithm using Fletchers quadratic programming method. IEE Proc C 1989;136:15361. [10] Contaxis GC, Delkis C, Korres G. Decoupled optimal load ow using linear or quadratic programming. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1986;1:17. [11] Nanda J, Hari L, Kothari ML, Henry J. Extremely fast economic load dispatch algorithm through modied co-ordination equations. IEE Proc C 1992;139:3945. [12] Nanda J, Narayanan BR. Application of genetic algorithm to economic load dispatch with line-ow constraints. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2002;24:7239.

5. Conclusion This paper presents an attractive and repulsive particle swarm optimization (ARPSO) for economic dispatch with security constraints. The constraints, which are in consideration, are line-ows and bus voltages. The proposed approach utilizes the global and local exploration capabilities of PSO to search for the optimal setting of the state variables by considering security constraints into account. The ARPSO, which is based on constriction factor approach with diversity factor are useful for obtaining high quality solution in a very less time compared to the other classical methods and GA because of its less computational intensive property (free with premature convergence). This paper demonstrates with clarity, successful application of ARPSO to the solution of ELD with security constraints. Three test systems (IEEE 14 bus, 30 bus, 57 bus) have been tested and the ELD results with ARPSO have been compared with those obtained through classical techniques, linear programming techniques, quadratic programming technique, and genetic algorithm. The optimum result for all three systems by using ARPSO is presented in Table 12. Results reveal that the algorithm developed for ARPSO works satisfactorily for different magnitudes of line-ow constraints and it is most suitable for complex combinatorial problems of power system.

You might also like