240

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007

Bacteria Foraging-Based Solution to Optimize Both

Real Power Loss and Voltage Stability Limit
M. Tripathy and S. Mishra, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractOptimal location and control of a unified power flow

controller (UPFC) along with transformer taps are tuned with a
view to simultaneously optimize the real power losses and voltage
stability limit (VSL) of a mesh power network. This issue is formulated as a nonlinear equality and inequality constrained optimization problem with an objective function incorporating both the real
power loss and VSL. A new evolutionary algorithm known as bacteria foraging is applied for solving the multiobjective multivariable problem, with the UPFC location, its series injected voltage,
and the transformer tap positions as the variables. For a single objective of only real power loss, the same problem is also solved with
interior point successive linearization program (IPSLP) technique
using the LINPROG command of MATLAB. A comparison between the two suggests the superiority of the proposed algorithm. A
cost effectiveness analysis of UPFC installation vis--vis loss reduction is carried out to establish the benefit of investment in a UPFC.
Index TermsBacteria foraging, continuation power flow, linear
programming, optimal power flow (OPF).

I. INTRODUCTION

PTIMAL power flow (OPF) is a static nonlinear program

that intends to schedule the controls of the power system
in such a manner that a certain objective function like real
power loss is optimized with some operating equipment and security requirement, limit constraints forced on the solution. The
OPF problem has been solved from different perspectives, such
as studying the effects of load increase/decrease on voltage
stability/power flow solvability, generation rescheduling to
minimize the cost of power generation, controls such as taps,
shunts, and other modern VAR sources adjustments to minimize
real power losses in the system. The OPF is solved by varieties
of methods, i.e., successive linear programming (SLP) [1], the
Newton-based nonlinear programming method [2], and with
varieties of recently proposed interior point methods (IPM)
[3][5].
With the advent of flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS)
technology, a new possibility of optimizing the power flow
without resorting to generation rescheduling or topology
changes has arisen. Unified power flow controller (UPFC), the
most advanced in the family of these controllers, can provide
significant flexibility in OPF by injecting a controlled series
and shunt compensation [6].
In deregulated power environment, proper coordination of the
UPFC with the existing transformer taps already present in the
system will not only improve the steady state operating limit of
Manuscript received October 25, 2006; revised September 5, 2006. The work
of S. Mishra was supported by AICTE, India under its Young Teachers Award
scheme-2004. Paper no. TPWRS-00694-2005.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2006.887968

a power system but also see that the system is more secure in
terms of voltage collapse. In [7], the authors have coordinated
several FACTS devices to provide a secured transmission with
minimized active power loss. It is well known that the OPF solution alone does not reflect upon the above security concerns of
the system. The continuation power flow (CPF) [8] gives information regarding how much percentage overloading the system
can withstand before a possible voltage collapse. In [9], the authors have successfully incorporated the CPF problem into an
OPF problem so that both the issues can be addressed simultaneously. In this paper, the maximum percentage overloading
the system can withstand is defined as voltage stability
limit (VSL) and incorporated along with the objective of real
power loss minimization, making the problem multiobjective.
The main disadvantage with the classical techniques of
OPF solution lies in the fact that they are highly sensitive to
starting points, owing to a nonmonotonic solution surface. To
eliminate such problems, evolutionary techniques have been
applied in solving the OPF problem [10], [11]. In [11], the
authors have applied particle swarm optimization (PSO) to the
problem of OPF. Such algorithms, based on food searching
behavior of species (like birds, etc.), compute both global
and local best positions at each instant of time, to decide
the best direction of search.
This paper employs a new algorithm from the family of evolutionary computation, known as bacteria foraging algorithm
(BFA), to solve a combined CPF-OPF problem of real power
loss minimization and VSL maximization of the system. BFA
has been recently proposed [12] and further applied for harmonic estimation problem in power systems [13]. The algorithm
is based on the foraging behavior of E. coli bacteria present in
human intestine. The UPFC location, series injection voltage,
and transformer tap positions are simultaneously optimized as
control variables, so that the multiple objectives are fulfilled,
keeping an eye to all specified constraints. The results so obtained show its strength in solving highly nonlinear epistatic
problems. The main objectives of this paper are to optimize the
transformer taps, UPFC location, and its injection voltage for a
single objective of real power loss minimization and then for the
multiple objectives of loss minimization and VSL maximization. For both the cases of single and multiple objectives, the
optimization is carried out in three steps, as given below.
1) Only transformer tap positions are optimized.
2) Keeping the optimized transformer tap positions from the
above step fixed, the UPFC variables are optimized.
3) Both the transformer taps and UPFC variables are optimized simultaneously.
Finally, a cost analysis for installation of UPFC is carried out
to establish the investment in putting a UPFC for the cause.

0885-8950/$20.00 2006 IEEE

TRIPATHY AND MISHRA: BACTERIA FORAGING-BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMIZE BOTH REAL POWER LOSS AND VSL

241

II. BACTERIA FORAGING OPTIMIZATION: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

The idea of BFA is based on the fact that natural selection
tends to eliminate animals with poor foraging strategies and
favor those having successful foraging strategies. After many
generations, poor foraging strategies are either eliminated or reshaped into good ones. The E. coli bacteria that are present in
our intestines have a foraging strategy governed by four processes, namely, chemotaxis, swarming, reproduction, and elimination and dispersal [12].
1) Chemotaxis: This process is achieved through swimming
and tumbling. Depending upon the rotation of the flagella
in each bacterium, it decides whether it should move in a
predefined direction (swimming) or an altogether different
direction (tumbling), in the entire lifetime of the bacterium.
To represent a tumble, a unit length random direction, say,
, is generated; this will be used to define the direction
of movement after a tumble. In particular

Fig. 1. New England power system layout.

(1)
where
represents the th bacterium at th chemotactic, th reproductive, and th elimination and dispersal
is the size of the step taken in the random distep.
rection specified by the tumble. C is termed as the run
length unit.
2) Swarming: It is always desired that the bacterium that has
searched the optimum path of food should try to attract
other bacteria so that they reach the desired place more
rapidly. Swarming makes the bacteria congregate into
groups and hence move as concentric patterns of groups
with high bacterial density. Mathematically, swarming can
be represented by

Fig. 2. Basic arrangement of UPFC.

either gradually by consumption of nutrients or suddenly

due to some other influence. Events can kill or disperse all
the bacteria in a region. They have the effect of possibly destroying the chemotactic progress, but in contrast, they also
assist it, since dispersal may place bacteria near good food
sources. Elimination and dispersal helps in reducing the
behavior of stagnation (i.e., being trapped in a premature
solution point or local optima). The detailed mathematical
derivations as well as theoretical aspect of this new concept
are presented in [12] and [13].
III. PROBLEM STATEMENT

(2)

is the cost function value to be

where
added to the actual cost function to be minimized to present
a time varying cost function. S is the total number of bacteria. p is the number of parameters to be optimized that
,
,
,
are present in each bacterium.
are different coefficients that are to be chosen
and
judiciously.
3) Reproduction: The least healthy bacteria die, and the other
healthiest bacteria each split into two bacteria, which are
placed in the same location. This makes the population of
bacteria constant.
4) Elimination and Dispersal: It is possible that in the local
environment, the life of a population of bacteria changes

Problem: to solve a voltage secure real power loss minimization of the ten-machine New England power systems [15], connected with UPFC by using IPSLP and BFA. Both the sequential
and simultaneous allocation of transformer taps and UPFC are
carried out for comparison,
A. Test System
In this paper, the ten-machine, 39-bus New England power
system shown in Fig. 1 is considered for study. The system data
in detail, including the 12 transformers nominal tap values, are
given in [15]. The system diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
B. Operating Principle of the UPFC and Its Model
The UPFC is a unique device in the family of FACTs devices.
It consists of a series and shunt connected converters as depicted
in Fig. 2.

242

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007

The function to be optimized now can be represented as

(6)
where
Real Power Loss
Fig. 3. UPFC injection model.

It can simultaneously control the real and reactive powers of

the line and voltage of the bus at which it is connected, by injecting proper magnitude of voltage in series and shunt, respectively. In this paper, one UPFC, with injection model [6], is connected in the system at the suitable location. The UPFC injection
model is presented in Fig. 3.

The solution of CPF is carried out with the help of a suitably

chosen continuation parameter. With the increase of , a new
solution point is predicted first and then corrected in usual predictor and corrector steps [8]. Since the objective is to maximize
the VSL, so its reciprocal is added to the original cost function
of real power loss so that the overall cost can be minimized.
IV. IMPROVED BACTERIAL FORAGING: THE ALGORITHM

C. Optimal Power Flow (OPF): Problem Formulation

The objective function

is real power loss of the mesh
is a set of nonconnected multimachine test system.
linear equality constraints to represent power flow, and
is a set of nonlinear inequality constraints (i.e., bus voltages,
transformer/line MVA limits, etc.). Vector consists of dependent variables, and consists of control variables. For the
above problem, the control variables are the transformer tap
values, and both the magnitude and phase angle of UPFC se.
ries injected voltage

The BF algorithm suggested in [12] and [13] is modified so

as to expedite the convergence. The modifications are discussed
below.
1) In [13], the author has taken the average value of all the
chemotactic cost functions, to decide the health of particular bacteria in that generation, before sorting is carried
out for reproduction. In this paper, instead of the average
value, the minimum value of all the chemotactic cost functions is retained for deciding the bacteriums health. This
speeds up the convergence, because in the average scheme
[13], it may not retain the fittest bacterium for the subsequent generation. On the contrary, in this paper, the global
minimum bacteria among all chemotactic stages passes on
to the subsequent stage.
2) For swarming, the distances of all the bacteria in a new
chemotactic stage is evaluated from the global optimum
bacterium until that point and not the distances of each
bacterium from the rest of the others, as suggested in [12]
and [13].
The algorithm is discussed here in brief.

D. OPF Formulation Considering Voltage Stability Limit

Step 1Initialization

The OPF problem is a static constrained nonlinear optimization problem, the solution of which determines the optimal settings of control variables in a power network respecting various
constraints. Hence, the problem is to solve a set of nonlinear
equations describing the optimal solution of power system. It is
expressed as
Minimize
Subject to
(3)

The same objective of real power loss minimization is augmented with maximization of VSL. The VSL can be calculated
through CPF, which introduces a load parameter defined as the
percentage increase of generation and load from its base value.
The resulting load and generation equation in terms of the load
parameter is as follows:

(4)
The load parameter can be increased until the system just
reaches the verge of instability, which is also known as the
notch point of the PV-curve. The maximum value of the load
parameter
is termed as VSL. The objective is to

The following variables are initialized.

1) Number of bacteria (S) to be used in the search.
2) Number of parameters (p) to be optimized.
3) Swimming length .
4)
the number of iterations in a chemotactic loop.
.
the number of reproduction.
5)
the number of elimination and dispersal events.
6)
7)
the probability of elimination and dispersal.
8) Location of each bacterium P(p,S,1), i.e., random numbers
on [01].
,
,
, and
.
9) The values of
Step 2Iterative algorithm for optimization

Optimize
Subject to
(5)

This section models the bacterial population chemotaxis,

swarming, reproduction, and elimination and dispersal

TRIPATHY AND MISHRA: BACTERIA FORAGING-BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMIZE BOTH REAL POWER LOSS AND VSL

(initially,
). For the algorithm updating,
automatically results in updating of P.
1) Elimination-dispersal loop:
2) Reproduction loop:
3) Chemotaxis loop:
a) For
, calculate cost function value for
each bacterium as follows.
Compute value of cost function
. Let
.
is the location of bacterium corresponding to
the global minimum cost function out of all the
generations and chemotactic loops until that point
(i.e., add on the cell-to-cell attractant effect for
swarming behavior).
to save this value since
Let
we may find a better cost via a run.
End of For loop
, take the tumbling/swimming
b) For
decision
Tumble: Generate a random vector
with each element
, a random
number on [0,1].
Move: let

Fixed step size in the direction of tumble for

bacterium is considered.
and then let
Compute

Swim:
; (counter for swim length)
i) Let
ii) While
(have not climbed down too
long)
Let
If
(if doing
better), let
and

243

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the bacteria foraging algorithm.

(and the copies that are made are placed at the same
location as their parent)
, go to 2; in this case, we have not reached the
6) If
number of specified reproduction steps, so we start the
next generation in the chemotactic loop.
, with probability
7) Elimination-dispersal: For
, eliminates and disperses each bacterium (this keeps
the number of bacteria in the population constant). To do
this, if one eliminates a bacterium, simply disperse it to a
random location on the optimization domain.
The flowchart of the improved algorithm is shown in Fig. 4.
V. INTERIOR POINT SUCCESSIVE LINEARIZATION
The successive linearization program solves the OPF problem
as a succession of linear solutions starting from an initial point.
That is to

use this

to compute the new

Minimize

Else, let
. This is the end of the
While statement.
if
(i.e., go to b)
c) Go to next bacterium
to process the next bacterium.
, go to step 3. In this case, continue chemotaxis
4) If
since the life of the bacteria is not over.
5) Reproduction
, let
a) For the given and , and for each
be the health of
the bacterium . Sort bacteria in order of ascending
(higher cost means lower health).
cost
bacteria with highest
values
b) The
die and other bacteria with the best value split

Subject to
(7)
where
initial values of

,
,
,

and ;

shift about this initial point;

linear approximation of nonlinear problem.

The basic steps of the IPSLP algorithm are given below.

1) Solve the power flow problem.
2) Linearize the OPF problem (express it in terms of changes
about the current exact system operating condition).

244

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007

a) The sensitivities of the cost function with respect to

the change in control variables are evaluated by perturbing around their present value infinitesimally.
b) The changes in values of the monitored constraints are
evaluated properly from the power flow.
as
c) Express the incremental control variables
changes about the current control variable values.
3) Linearize the incremental network model.
4) Solve the linearly constrained OPF by primal-dual interior
point method.
, solve the exact non5) Update the control variables by
linear power flow problem, and evaluate the cost function
for the updated control variables
6) If the tolerance in changes in control variables has been
reached, then terminate; else, go to step 2 and continue.
In this paper, the real power loss minimization problem is formulated by considering a constant real and a variable reactive
power generation profile in the system. The LINPROG command in MATLAB is used to solve the IPSLP. In the IPSLP
technique, the approach is to minimize the change in loss instead of loss itself, as the solution progresses in succession. The
LINPROG command is based on the technique of Linear programming Interior Point Solver (LIPSOL) algorithm. Starting
from the last iteration solution, the sensitivities of the real power
loss to the control variables (i.e., the transformer taps and UPFC
variables) are evaluated for them to be used in the LINPROG
command.
VI. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
The objective function of the real power loss minimization problem is formulated by introducing penalty factors for
voltage, transformer MVA, and transmission line limit violations. These penalty factors are added to the total real power
loss in the system
where
Real Power Loss

(8)
where
,
, and
are the penalty factors added with the
, so that a constrained solution is achieved.
real power loss
and
are the maximum and minimum limits of bus
and
voltages [14] for all the buses. Similarly,
are, respectively, the maximum MVA limits of the transformers
and
and lines in the system. The values of
are chosen at double the maximum nominal values of respective quantities. The formulation of penalty factors can be clearly
understood with the help of an example. If all the bus voltage
solution so obtained for a particular set of control variable are
and
limits, then the value of would
within the
be zero; otherwise, it will be either 10 or 20, depending on
whether one or both the upper and lower limits have been violated. Hence, the solution of a minimization problem would
always avoid those that violate the limits. The methodology

Fig. 5. Reproduction schemes proposed (Min) versus [13] (average).

adopted for optimization with both the BFA and IPSLP techniques are discussed here in brief. With BFA technique, both
the single objective of real power loss minimization (denoted as
BFAS) and multiobjective of loss and VSL (denoted as BFAM)
were solved. For multiobjective case, the objective function can
be formulated as
(9)
A. Optimization With Only Transformer Taps as Control
Variables (Single Objective of Loss, BFAS)
Bacteria Foraging (Without Swarming): Initially, the
swarming effect is excluded from the algorithm so as to
study the convergence behavior. The values of bacteria number
are chosen in steps,
(S) and the chemotactic loops number
and the algorithm is run for number of times. For a whole cycle
of elimination and dispersal loop when the cost function remains unchanged, then the algorithm is said to have converged.
This occurs when the minimum of cost function values among
all bacteria becomes equal to their average [13]. The speed of
convergence differs with different combinations of S and . It
was found that
and
gives the fastest convergence.
A comparison of convergence by taking the average value of
each bacterium [13] in the chemotactic stage to that of global
minimum for reproduction is presented in Fig. 5. It is found
that with the proposed scheme, the algorithm converges faster.
Moreover, it is also observed that with the average scheme,
the algorithm convergence is very sensitive to the value of S, ,
and the run length unit coefficient C. For some combinations of
these values, the average scheme has a tendency of oscillating
around the solution point (as in Fig. 5). This phenomenon is
avoided when the global minimum bacterium is retained before
reproduction.
Bacteria Foraging (With Swarming): As established above,
swarming is included now considering the global minimum. To
choose the parameters of swarming, the algorithm is run for
,
,
, and
. It
different values of
was found that these values when chosen as 2.0, 0.2, 2.0, and

TRIPATHY AND MISHRA: BACTERIA FORAGING-BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMIZE BOTH REAL POWER LOSS AND VSL

245

Fig. 6. Performance of algorithms.

TABLE I
OPTIMIZATION WITH ONLY TRANSFORMER TAPS AS CONTROL VARIABLES

Fig. 7. PV curve of weakest bus (only taps).

loss. The optimization is carried out only with BFA. The transformer tap values, along with the corresponding optimized loss
and VSL values, are given in Table I. It is seen that the VSL
value has improved, although the real power loss has increased
marginally. However, the sum of real power loss and the reciprocal of VSL has reduced, when the multiobjective function is
considered. Fig. 7 also depicts the P-V curve of the weakest bus
for BFAM. It is seen that, with BFAM, the system can withstand
more loading before a voltage collapse could occur.
B. Sequential Optimization of UPFC Location and Its
Injection Voltage With Above Optimized Tap Values

10, respectively, give the fastest convergence. Fig. 6 elucidates

the relative improvement of convergence when swarming effect is included as compared to without swarming. It is seen
that though the loss minimization is almost the same with both
the techniques, there is a difference in the values of tap positions to which the algorithms have converged. With nominal
values of taps, the real power loss and VSL were found out to
be 0.4483 and 0.8050 p.u., respectively. With the above optimized tap values, the CPF solution is carried out and the VSL is
calculated and presented in Table I. After solving the CPF, the
PV-curve for the weakest bus in the solution process is drawn
. As shown in Fig. 7, the PV-curve
w.r.t. the load parameter
for the weakest bus is similar for both BFAS and IPSLP techniques of optimization. It is to be noted that the weakest bus is
defined as that bus that undergoes maximum voltage deviation
during a CPF solution.
Optimization of Both Real Power Loss and VSL With Only
Transformer Taps as Control Variables (BFAM): With an objective to optimize both real power loss and VSL, the cost function
is modified. The reciprocal of VSL is added to the real power

With the optimized tap positions obtained in previous step,

the UPFC variables are then evaluated so that objective function
could still be reduced. The tap values for each scheme of optimization are kept at their corresponding values obtained from
the previous section. The power injection model as discussed
in Section III is used for modeling the UPFC. In both BFA and
IPSLP methods, 14 lines (out of a total of 46 lines), containing
transformers or feeding generator powers to the network, are
excluded for connecting the UPFC. The UPFC is connected at
the left-hand-side bus as per line notation given in [15]. For example, in lines 318 or 1013, the UPFC can be connected at
bus 3 or 10, respectively. In the case of BFA, the line at which
UPFC should be connected is decided randomly out of 32 lines
selected in the initial stage. So with BFA, the line number in
which UPFC is to be connected also becomes a control variable
along with the others. On the other hand, the UPFC location
cannot be used as a control variable for IPSLP, as it cannot be
linearized through perturbation. Therefore, in IPSLP technique,
the UPFC is connected in all the 32 lines, considering one at a
time. The best location and the UPFC injection voltage in each
succession of linearization are retained.
The optimization with BFA is carried out for both BFAM and
BFAS. Table II presents the values of UPFC location, its injection voltage, and the corresponding real power loss and VSL
values for IPSLP, BFAS, and BFAM separately. It is seen that
when more nonlinear equipment like UPFC is inducted into the
system, the IPSLP falls prey of a local minima, but the BFA

246

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007

TABLE II
OPTIMIZED VALUES OF UPFC LOCATION AND INJECTION
VOLTAGE WITH TRANSFORMER TAP VALUES FIXED

cost function. For optimizing with the BFAS, the numbers of

variables now become 15, i.e., 12 transformer tap positions, and
three UPFC variables. With IPSLP, this becomes 14, as the location of UPFC cannot be taken. The optimization algorithm remains the same. It is seen that the loss could still be reduced with
simultaneous optimization with both BFAS and IPSLP techniques, but the later again fails to minimize the loss as successfully as the BFAS. Moreover, it is seen that with the BFAM, the
VSL has improved considerably, though at the cost of deteriorated loss reduction. For all the optimized transformer tap and
UPFC variables, the corresponding loss and the VSL values are
given in Table III. Fig. 9 shows the P-V curves of the weakest
bus for all the three optimization schemes. The magnitude of
bus voltages (with simultaneous optimization), obtained with
the three schemes of optimization, is shown in Fig. 10. It is seen
that all the bus voltages remain within the limits, and the generator buses maintain their specified voltages when the optimized
variables are used.
D. Cost Benefits Analysis for Implementing a UPFC
for Loss Reduction
For comprehending the economic benefit of investing in a
costly device like the UPFC, a straightforward calculation in
terms of reduction in cost of generation due to reduced loss in
the system can be compared vis--vis the investment cost of
UPFC, assuming it is to be delivering service for a certain period of time [16]. So for a cost benefit analysis, the optimized
UPFC parameters only with one objective of real power loss
minimization are considered. For any of the schemes, the reduction in generation cost is evaluated [17], by considering as
much reduction in generation of the slack bus as there was reis
duction in loss of the system. The cost of generation
evaluated as follows:

Fig. 8. PV curve of weakest bus (sequential UPFC).

has successfully converged. Moreover, with IPSLP optimized

UPFC variables, the VSL calculated was much lower. That is,
with IPSLP, though the system real power loss could be reduced,
it would be at the cost of decreasing the security margin of the
system. It is also seen that, even though with BFAM the loss
could not be reduced considerably, it has best succeeded in reducing the combined objective of loss minimization and VSL
maximization.
Fig. 8 depicts the PV-curves of the weakest bus for all the
three cases of IPSLP, BFAS, and BFAM. It is found that with
BFAM, the UPFC parameters can be so optimized that the
system could be loaded beyond double ( is more than 1),
its nominal loading before a voltage collapse could occur.
It is depicted from Fig. 8 that the other two techniques have
achieved lower magnitude of VSL.
C. Simultaneous Optimization of UPFC Location, Its Injection
Voltage Along With Taps
Simultaneous optimization of UPFC location and its variables
along with the transformer taps could still reduce the overall

(10)
The values of
and
for the tenth (slack) generator is chosen
as per [17]. The savings in generation cost owing to loss reduction after installation of UPFC can be estimated by finding
for two different generation
the differential generation cost
scheduling, i.e., before and after incorporation of UPFC (transformer taps being optimized), considering the total loss reduction has been translated only to the slack generator. Five percent
of the UPFC MVA rating is considered as its switching loss and
added to the actual real power loss of the system. The investment cost of UPFC is evaluated with the help of the following
empirical formula [14], [16]:
(11)
is the cost of UPFC in $/Kvar, and
is the
where
operating range of the UPFC in Mvar. The coefficients , ,
are taken as 188.2, 0.2691, and 0.0003, respectively
and
[16]. Taking the average running duration of the UPFC to be
is evaluated in terms of $/h, so
five years, the cost of UPFC
that it can be compared with . Table IV below gives the comparative figures of investing in UPFC with both simultaneous
and sequential BFAS schemes, denoted as X and Y, respectively.

TRIPATHY AND MISHRA: BACTERIA FORAGING-BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMIZE BOTH REAL POWER LOSS AND VSL

247

TABLE III
SIMULTANEOUSLY OPTIMIZED VALUES OF UPFC AND TRANSFORMER TAPS

Fig. 9. PV curve of weakest bus (simultaneous UPFC and taps).

From Table IV, at the particular operating conditions, it is found

that the actual MVA capacity of the series part of the UPFC for
the two schemes, required for only reducing transmission loss,
are 8.55 and 4.22 MVA, respectively. However, the operating
conditions can change, which may require different MVA injection for the same cause. Moreover, the UPFC can also be used
for many other application such as improving VSL, regulating
the real and reactive power flow in the transmission line, and improving stability of a power system. To accommodate such extra
features along with the loss reduction, the MVA capacity has to
be increased. Therefore, in this paper, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of UPFC, we have considered the rating as 15 MVA.
The IPSLP scheme was found to be still more cost ineffective,
as the loss reduction is poorer as compared to BFA, whereas the
UPFC injection requirements are almost comparable. From the
results, the simultaneous scheme (X, shown bold in Table IV)
proves to be more beneficial, as compared to the sequential (Y)
scheme. In this paper, 100 MVA is considered as the base value
for carrying out the simulation work.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
In any power system, it can be inferred that optimizing control
variables for any one objective of real power loss or VSL may

Fig. 10. Voltage profiles of all the buses at nominal load.

TABLE IV
SAVING IN COST OF GENERATION (F ) VERSUS UPFC COST (F )

deteriorate the other. Therefore, the new evolutionary technique,

bacteria foraging, is used for allocating, transformer taps, and
UPFC with a view to minimize the real power loss and improve
the VSL of the system simultaneously. For single objective of
real power loss, the BFA technique succeeds in better loss minimization as compared to conventional IPSLP technique, particularly after the UPFC is introduced into the system. It can be deduced that the IPSLP becomes more prone to local optimality,
when variables of highly nonlinear devices like the UPFC are
taken into consideration. The results of the multiobjective solution show that the BFAM technique has provided the better
solution as compared to the IPSLP. In BFAM case, it is seen
that even though a marginal price is paid for the loss, the system

248

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 22, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2007

VSL has improved. Finally, an economic viability study of installing the UPFC is carried out, which clarifies the fact that the
simultaneous scheme of optimizing both UPFC variables and
transformer taps together is more beneficial compared to the sequential scheme. This is because of the fact that more system
real power loss reduction is achieved with the former scheme,
with the same UPFC MVA rating.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Ristanovic, Successive linear programming based OPF solution,
Optimal Power Flow: Solution Techniques, Requirements and Challenges, IEEE Power Eng. Soc., pp. 19, 1996.
[2] D. Sun et al., Optimal power flow by newton approach, IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103, no. 10, pp. 28642875, Oct. 1984.
[3] S. Granville, Optimal power dispatch through interior pont methods,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 17801787, Nov. 1994.
[4] G. Torres and V. Quintana, An interior point method for non-linear optimal power flow using voltage rectangular coordinates, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 12111218, Nov. 1998.
[5] J. L. Martinez Ramos, A. G. Exposito, and V. Quintana, Transmission
loss reduction by interior point methods: implementation issues and
practical experience, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib.,
vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 9098, Jan. 2005.
[6] M. Noroozian, L. Angquist, M. Ghandhari, and G. Anderson, Use of
UPFC for optimal power flow control, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
12, no. 4, pp. 16291634, Oct. 1997.
[7] G. Glanzmann and G. Andersson, Coordinated control of FACTS devices based on optimal power flow, in Proc. 37th Annu. North Amer.
Power Symp., Ames, IA, Oct. 2325, 2005.
[8] V. Ajjarapu and C. Christy, The continuation power flow: a tool for
steady state voltage stability analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 416423, Feb. 1992.
[9] F. Milano, C. A. Canizares, and A. J. Conejo, Sensitivity-based security-constrained OPF market clearing model, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 20512060, Nov. 2005.
[10] J. Yuryevich and K. P. Wong, Evolutionary programming based optimal power flow algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 12451250, Nov. 1999.
[11] A. A. A. Esmin, G. Torres, and A. C. Z. de Souza, A hybrid particle
swarm optimization applied to loss power minimization, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 859866, May 2005.

[12] K. M. Passino, Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization and control, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 22, no. 3, pp.
5267, Jun. 2002.
[13] S. Mishra, A hybrid least square-fuzzy bacteria foraging strategy for
harmonic estimation, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
6173, Feb. 2005.
[14] M. Saravan, S. M. Raja Slochanal, P. Venkatesh, and J. P. S. Abraham,
Application of PSO technique for optimal location of FACTS devices
considering system loadability and cost of installation, in Proc. 7th
Int. Power Engineering Conf., 2005, Nov. 29Dec. 2, 2005.
[15] M. A. Pai, Energy Function Analysis for Power System Stability. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
[16] L. J. Cai and I. Erlich, Optimal choice and allocation of FACTS devices using genetic algorithm, in Proc. Intelligent Systems Application
Power Systems, Lemnos, Greece, Aug. 31Sept. 3 2003.
[17] T. B. Nguyen and M. A. Pai, Dynamic security-constrained
rescheduling of power systems using trajectory sensitivities, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 848854, May 2003.

M. Tripathy is pursuing the Ph.D. degree (part-time) in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India.
He is with the University College of Engineering Burla, Orissa, India. His
field of interest is intelligent control application to power system dynamics.

S. Mishra (SM04) received the B.E. degree from

University College of Engineering, Burla, Orissa,
India, in 1990 and the M.E. and Ph.D. degrees from
Regional Engineering College, Rourkela, Orissa,
India, in 1992 and 2000, respectively.
In 1992, he joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Burla,
as a Lecturer and subsequently became a Reader in
2001. Presently, he is an Assistant Professor with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India. His interests are in
soft computing applications to power system control and power quality.
Dr. Mishra has been honored with many prestigious awards, such as INSA
Young Scientist Medal-2002, INAE Young Engineers Award-2002, recognition
as DST Young Scientist 20012002, and the Carrier Award for young teachers
by AICTE.