Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In this paper, a modied teachinglearning based optimization algorithm is analyzed to solve the multi-
Received 6 July 2013 objective optimal power ow problem considering the total fuel cost and total emission of the units. The
Accepted 12 September 2013 modied phase of the optimization algorithm utilizes a self-adapting wavelet mutation strategy. More-
over, a fuzzy clustering technique is proposed to avoid extremely large repository size besides a smart
population selection for the next iteration. These techniques make the algorithm searching a larger space
Keywords: to nd the optimal solutions while speed of the convergence remains good. The IEEE 30-Bus and 57-Bus
Optimal power ow
systems are used to illustrate performance of the proposed algorithm and results are compared with
Multi-objective problem
Modied teachinglearning based
those in literatures. It is veried that the proposed approach has better performance over other
optimization techniques.
Pareto-optimal set 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction eters such as those in GA, PSO and ACO. [11]. This algorithm is used
to solve the economic dispatch problem [12] but there is no re-
Optimal power ow (OPF) is a non-linear programming prob- search on solving the OPF problem by this method.
lem that species the optimal control points of a power network The OPF problem may have various objective functions. The
to minimize a desired objective, commonly cost of generation, sub- most commonly used objective is the minimization of the overall
ject to a set of certain system constraints [1]. Generally, the OPF fuel cost of generators. However, other traditional objectives are
problem is a large-scale highly constrained non-linear non-convex minimization of active power loss, bus voltage deviation, emission
optimization problem [2]. There are some mathematical tech- of units, number of control actions, and load shedding [13]. A mul-
niques to solve this problem such as linear and non-linear pro- ti-objective optimal power ow (MO-OPF) problem is made if more
gramming [36], quadratic programming [7], and the interior than one of these objective functions should be optimized [14].
point method [8,9]. All of these methods may be trapped in local Several techniques are used to solve a multi-objective optimiza-
minima that prevent the algorithm reaching the true optimal solu- tion problem (MOP). One method is combining all objective func-
tion. Other disadvantages of these techniques are enormous com- tions into one objective function using weighting factors. It nds
putational effort and time consumption. Recent methods to deal just one solution for the problem that is very dependent on the
with the shortcomings of these mathematical approaches are evo- weighting factors and this is the main disadvantage of this tech-
lutionary algorithms such as genetic algorithm (GA), tabu search nique. Another way to deal with a multi-objective problem is solv-
(TS), particle swarm optimization (PSO) and ant colony optimiza- ing all objective functions simultaneously using evolutionary
tion (ACO). methods. Since these algorithms are population-based techniques,
One of the recently proposed techniques to solve the optimiza- multiple Pareto-optimal solutions can be found in one program run
tion problems is the teachinglearning based optimization (TLBO) [15].
[10]. This technique is a new efcient optimization algorithm that The aim of this paper is to solve the MO-OPF problem using the
has been inspired by learning mechanism in a class. The main modied TLBO algorithm. A self-adaptive mutation wavelet tech-
advantage of this method over the other evolutionary algorithms nique is proposed to deal with the search capability, population
is that TLBO is an algorithm-parameter-free technique and the diversity, and convergence speed. An external repository is utilized
effectiveness of the method is not affected by the algorithm param- to save all non-dominated optimal solutions during the process.
Then a fuzzy decision making method is applied to sort these solu-
tions according to their importance and decision makers can
Corresponding author.
choose the desired solution between the Pareto-optimal solutions
E-mail addresses: shabanpour.amin@gmail.com (A. Shabanpour-Haghighi),
sei@shirazu.ac.ir (A.R. Sei), niknam@sutech.ac.ir (T. Niknam).
by applying this fuzzy decision making mechanism. Furthermore,
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.09.028
598 A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607
a fuzzy clustering approach is employed to decrease size of the where F2(X) is the total emission of units (ton/h), ai, bi, ci, ni, and ki
repository without losing its characteristics. Also, a smart popula- are the emission coefcients of the ith generator.
tion selection is used to choose population of the next iteration of
the algorithm efciently. Simulations are done on the standard 2.3. Equality constraints
IEEE 30-Bus and 57-Bus systems and results are compared with
the conventional TLBO and other evolutionary methods. The effec- The OPF equality constraints show the power ow feasibility
tiveness and advantages of the proposed method is veried by var- that can be expressed as:
ious criterions. Nb
X
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, math- Pgi Pdi V i V j Gij cos hij Bij sin hij 0 9
ematical formulation of the OPF objective functions are reviewed. j1
In Section 3, the TLBO algorithm and its proposed modication
are described in details, while Section 4 consists of some overview Nb
X
on the multi-objective problems. Moreover, the utilized fuzzy Q gi Q di V i V j Gij sin hij Bij cos hij 0 10
method and the smart population selection are described in this j1
The emission objective function can be represented as below: 3.1. Teacher phase
Ng
X
F 2 X ai bi Pgi ci Pgi n exp ki P gi 8 The teacher is considered as the most knowledgeable person in
i1 a class who shares his knowledge with the students to improve the
A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607 599
output (i.e. grades or marks) of the class [12]. The teacher improves 3.3. Modied phase
the mean of the class up to his level. Let Mi and Ti be the mean and
the teacher at the ith iteration. As it is mentioned above, Ti tries to The interactions in the learner phase may lead to inappropriate
enhance Mi to his own level. So the teacher phase of the algorithm knowledge exchange between learners in the way that the method
can be formulated as follows: can be trapped in local minima. Therefore, another learning modi-
cation phase is applied to overcome this shortcoming. This ap-
DMi randi T i T F Mi 17 proach consists of a self-adapting wavelet mutation (SAWM)
strategy to improve the performance of the original TLBO algo-
T F round1 rand0; 1 18 rithm that makes faster convergence and avoids getting trapped
in local minima. Using wavelet theory, the SAWM technique can
dynamically change the mutation space along the convergence
X new
i X old
i DM i 19 procedure. This technique is based on the fact that the students
are tends to move in the similar way with the teacher and avoid
where randi is a random number between [0, 1] and TF is the teach- moving to the worst way. A mutation probability, PX, is dened
ing factor that decides the value of the mean to be changed. The for each learner that its value is between [0, 1]. Then a random
new value of Xi is accepted if its tness function value is better than number between 0 and 1 is generated and compared with PX.
the old one. The mutation takes happened if that random number is equal or
less than PX. The new position of the learner can be calculated as
follows:
3.2. Learner phase 8
>
< X Old x T i X Old if x > 0
i i
Each learner interacts with other learners randomly via group X New 20
i
discussions, presentations, formal communications, etc. to increase >
: X Old x W i X Old if x 6 0
i i
his knowledge [19]. The process of this phase is as follows:
where Wi is the worst student in each iteration. Again the accep-
1. Randomly select two learners Xi and Xj where i j. tance of the new Xi is dependent on whether its tness value is im-
2. According to the value of their tness function, if F(Xi) < - proved or not. The value of x is calculated by the Morlet wavelet
F(Xj) then the new learner is X new
i randi X i X j else function as below:
the new learner is X new randi X j X i .
2
i
1 1 u u
3. The replacement procedure can be implemented if the t- x p exp cos xc 21
ness value of the new Xi is better than the old one. h 2 h h
600 A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607
where xc is the central frequency of the wavelet. In this paper, 4.2. External repository
xc = 5 is selected. A larger value of |x| makes a larger change in
the mutation and vice versa. Furthermore, a positive value of x The proposed MTLBO uses an external archive called repository
makes the mutant student moves toward the teacher. Conversely, to save the non-dominated solutions found so far. In each itera-
if x is negative the mutant learner recedes from position of the tions of the MTLBO algorithm, besides the optimization process,
worst learner. Due to the fact that 99% of the total energy of the solutions found by each phase of the algorithm are compared with
mother wavelet function is located between the intervals the repository members. The new non-dominated solutions are
[2.5, +2.5], the value of parameter u can be randomly generated stored in the repository. Also the algorithm removes the domi-
between [2.5h, +2.5h]. The algorithm uses a larger search space nated members of the repository. The repository size of most opti-
at the beginning to nd the nearly global best solution and then mization problems could be increased extremely large during the
the search space is restricted around this global solution to increase optimization algorithm. It is obvious that the large number of indi-
the accuracy of the nal solution. In this context, the dilation viduals in the repository may leads to more computation burden
parameter, h, is changed iteration by iteration in order to reach to and even the memory constraints. So limiting size of the repository
a ne-tuned value. It is set to a small value at the beginning that without losing the characteristic and quality of the POF is neces-
makes the value of |x| being large enough to produce a larger sary. In this paper, a repository with a determined size is used
searching space and then it increases in each iteration to make a and the new solution would be added to it if one of the following
smaller value of |x|, and hence a smaller searching space. As a re- conditions is satised:
sult, h can be calculated as:
The repository is empty.
r
h exp lng 1 k=kmax lng 22 The new solution dominates one of the individuals of the
repository.
where k and kmax are the current iteration and the total number of The repository is not full and the new solution is not dominated
iterations, respectively. The upper limit and shape format of by any individuals of the repository.
increasing function of h can be dened by g and r, respectively. The repository is full but the new solution is not dominated by
The value of r critically affects the performance of the algorithm. any individuals of the repository and it is in a less crowded area
In order to achieve the exploration capability of the algorithm and of the POF than at least one of the existing members of the
the accuracy of the nal results, the value of r should be dened repository.
correctly. To do so, it is set to a small value at the beginning and in-
creased iteration by iteration as follows: The detailed process of limiting size of the repository is
explained in the next subsection.
r rmin
r rmin max k 23
kmax
4.3. Fuzzy decision making method
where the upper and lower limits of r are dened by rmax and rmin,
respectively.
4.3.1. Fuzzy based clustering
Whenever the repository is full, in order to nd out whether the
4. Multi-objective problem new non-dominated solution should be replaced by one of the
repository members or not, a fuzzy decision making strategy is
4.1. Principles of MOP used. Since the objective functions have conicting behaviors in
the human judgment, decision maker can determine his prefer-
The aim of solving a multi-objective optimization problem is to ences for corresponding fuzzy objectives in fuzzy set to derive a
optimize several incomparable and conicting objectives simulta- Pareto-optimal solution efciently [21]. In a multi-objective prob-
neously. The algorithm to solve the MOP nds a set of non- lem, a fuzzy membership function is given to each objective. Mem-
dominated solutions known as Pareto-optimal front (POF) that bers with better tness value are given a higher value of the fuzzy
generally each solution has no priority over the others. Suppose membership function and vice versa. Assume that the ith objective
X1 and X2 are two different solutions of the system. X1 dominates function Fi(X) has the lower and upper margins called F min
i and F max
i ,
X2 and X1 is called the non-dominated solution when the following respectively. These margins are obtained by considering only this
conditions are satised [20]: objective function. In other word, other objective functions of the
8 MO-OPF are not considered to obtain these boundaries. Then the
< 8i 2 f1; 2; . . . ; ng; F i X 1 6 F i X 2
> fuzzy membership function of Fi (X) can be expressed by:
9j 2 f1; 2; . . . ; ng; F j X 1 < F j X 2 24
>
: 8
>
> 1 ; F i X 6 F min
i
< max
Fi F i X
li X F max F min
; F min
i 6 F i X 6 F max
i 26
where n is the number of objective functions. Therefore, the POF is >
>
: i i
POF fF 1 X; F 2 X; . . . ; F n XjX 2 Sg 25 In the proposed MO-OPF problem, the obtained POF may be
enormously large. In this regards, each individual of the repository
where S is the set of non-dominated solutions found by the constitutes a cluster with denite radius. Adjacent clusters are
algorithm. merged until the required repository size is obtained. In the merg-
This paper uses the capability of the MTLBO algorithm in ing process, the member with higher membership value of joining
searching the feasible space and develops it to solve the MO-OPF clusters is selected to store in the repository. The whole procedure
problem. Some modications are suggested in the proposed of proposed fuzzy based clustering is shown in Fig. 2. Note that in
MTLBO method to improve the algorithm which is discussed in this owchart, S is the number of non-dominated solutions, Nmax is
the next subsections. the maximum size of the repository, Ni and Nj are the numbers of
A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607 601
Fig. 2. Flowchart of fuzzy based clustering. where k, kmax, and krep,lled are the current iteration, the maximum
number of iterations, and the iteration that the repository is lled,
respectively. The value of constant P denes the performance of R
solutions in clusters Ci and Cj, respectively. The function that calcu- from an approximately linear characteristic to a periodic one.
lates the distance between solutions X and Y is called d (X, Y). Fig. 3 shows this characteristic for different values of P. Note that
in this gure krep,lled = 50 and kmax = 300. In this paper P = 2 is
4.3.2. Best compromise solution selected.
To nd out the best compromise solution among the nal
repository members, the fuzzy membership functions of all objec- 5. Application of the MTLBO to MO-OPF
tives are extracted separately and the fuzzy solution can be calcu-
lated as follows: The following steps should be done to solve the MO-OPF using
MTLBO.
FX minl1 X; . . . ; ln X 27
where n is the number of objective functions. The best compromise Step 1: Dene the input data such as line data, load parameters,
solution is the maximum value of F(X) among other values. fuel cost coefcients and emission coefcients of generators,
602 A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607
Table 2
Best fuel cost of generators obtained by various optimization algorithms.
PG1 PG2 PG3 PG4 PG5 PG6 Total Generation Total Cost
TS [24] 176.04 48.76 21.56 22.05 12.44 12 292.85 802.29
EP [25] 173.848 49.998 21.386 22.63 12.928 12 292.79 802.62
IEP [26] 176.2358 49.0093 21.5023 21.8115 12.3387 12.0129 292.9105 802.465
DE-OPF [27] 176.009 48.801 21.334 22.262 12.46 12 292.866 802.394
MDE-OPF [27] 175.974 48.884 21.51 22.24 12.251 12 292.859 802.376
SSA [28] 192.5105 48.3951 19.5506 11.6204 10 12 294.0766 804.1072
EGA [29] 176.2 48.75 21.44 21.95 12.42 12.02 292.78 802.06
ACO [30] 181.945 47.001 21.4596 21.446 13.207 12.0134 297.072 802.578
FGA [31] 175.137 50.353 21.451 21.176 12.667 12.11 292.894 802.0003
PSO [18] 175.6915 48.639 21.4494 22.72 12.2302 12 292.7301 802.0136
HBMO [16] 176.4646 46.274 21.4596 21.446 13.207 12.0134 292.8646 802.211
MHBMO [16] 177.0431 49.209 21.5135 22.648 10.4146 12 292.8242 801.985
TLBO 177.3986 48.0701 21.7722 21.89616 12.08228 11.61326 292.8326 801.9908
MTLBO 177.2561 48.0762 21.1925 22.1182 12.1124 11.821 292.5764 801.8925
Table 3
Best emission of generators obtained by various optimization algorithms.
802.6
Best
802.4
Average
802.2 Worst
802
801.8
801.6
801.4
TLBO MTLBO
Fig. 4. Best, average and worst result of 30 trails for the total fuel cost of generators.
0.216
Fig. 6. Convergence graphs of different TLBO methods.
Best
0.212 Average
Worst
0.208 Table 5
Successful percentage of various methods to reach the best result in 30 trials.
0.204
Total fuel cost ($/h)
Fig. 5. Best, average and worst result of 30 trails for the total emission of
generators.
Table 6
Effect of population size for 30 trails.
Table 4
The mean and the standard deviation of TLBO and MTLBO for 30 trails. Population size No. of hits to 801.8802 Average CPU time (min)
Table 7 Table 8
Control variables related to multi-objective problem for the TLBO and MTLBO C-Metric values in 30 trials.
methods.
C(TLBO, MTLBO) C(MTLBO, TLBO)
Total fuel cost Total emission
Best 0.005 1
TLBO MTLBO TLBO MTLBO Average 0.002 0.998
Worst 0 0.995
PG1 177.3986 177.2561 63.5221 64.2924
PG2 48.0701 48.0762 68.7345 67.625
PG3 21.7722 21.1925 49.9931 50
ja2 2 A2 ; 9a1 2 A1 : a1 < a2 j
PG4 21.89616 22.1182 34.9894 35 CA1 ; A2 30
PG5 12.08228 12.1124 29.9824 30 jA2 j
PG6 11.61326 11.821 39.9801 40
VG1 1.0498 1.049 1.0094 1.05
VG2 1.0381 1.0391 1.0014 1.0459 C(A1, A2) = 1 if All the members of A2 are dominated by the
VG3 1.0102 1.0127 0.97698 1.0284 members of A1 and C(A1, A2) = 0 if none of the members of A2 are
VG4 1.0173 1.0179 0.98951 1.0361 dominated by the members of A1.
VG5 1.05 1.05 1.0435 1.05
VG6 1.0499 1.0499 1.0487 1.04
T6-9 1.05 1.06 0.98 1.06
T6-10 0.91 0.9 0.95 0.91 6.1.2.3. D-Metric. This criterion shows the spread of the obtained
T4-12 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.04 Pareto-optimal set [34]. It is dened as follows:
T27-28 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.98
Cost 801.9908 801.8925 947.4392 945.1965 PM1
df dt jdi dj
i1
Emission 0.3668 0.3665 0.20503 0.20493 D 31
df dt M 1d
maximum iteration size is set to 200 for all of them. The average where di is the Euclidean distance between neighboring solutions in
CPU time is also reported in Table 6. It can be seen that the popu- the obtained non-dominated solutions set. df and dt are the Euclid-
lation size of 100 has been reached to more consistent solution. ean distance between the extreme solution and the boundary solu-
tion of the obtained Pareto-optimal set and d is mean value of all d .
The obtained operation points by considering each objective i
functions separately are shown in Table 7. Results of the cost-based A smaller value of D-Metric indicates a better distribution of the
OPF cause the emission to increase by 78.89% of the emission- Pareto-optimal solutions [34].
based OPF. Moreover, the emission-based OPF makes the cost of The MTLBO algorithm is compared with the original TLBO
generation increasing by 17.88% compared to the cost-based OPF. method in Tables 8 and 9. The MTLBO method utilizes a modied
It is clear that the best operating point of an objective function phase that makes the algorithm searching a larger space to nd
may not satisfy other objective functions. Hence a multi-objective the optimal solutions. So its nal solution set would be better than
optimization should be done to achieve the optimal operating the original TLBO method. The average, the best and the worst C-
point of the power system that satises all of the objective func- Metric values that are calculated in 30 trails are shown in Table 8.
tions simultaneously. Results show that the average value of C(MTLBO, TLBO) is larger
than the average of C(TLBO, MTLBO). It means that the Pareto-opti-
mal set obtained by MTLBO can dominates more members of the
6.1.2. Multi-objective OPF
original TLBO solution sets. In a similar way, the lower value of
The MO-OPF problem is solved by the MTLBO as described in
C(TLBO, MTLBO) shows that fewer members in the Pareto-optimal
Section 5. Fig. 7 shows the Pareto-optimal front of the objective
set achieved by the MTLBO can be dominated by the members of
functions for the TLBO and MTLBO techniques. To verify whether
solution sets obtained by the TLBO method.
the achieved result is better than the results of other algorithm
Table 9 summarizes the best, average, and the worst D-Metric
or not, two criterions is used for comparison.
values of the mentioned algorithms in 30 trails. It is clear that
the MTLBO can reach to a lower value of D-Metric compared with
6.1.2.2. C-Metric. This parameter indicates how much the outcome
the original method. This shows that the Pareto-optimal set ob-
of an algorithm dominates the outcome of another algorithm. Sup-
tained by this algorithm has a better distribution in the solution
pose that A1 and A2 are the Pareto-optimal sets obtained by two
space.
different algorithms. The C-Metric between these two sets is
dened as below [33]:
Table 9
D-Metric values in 30 trails.
TLBO MTLBO
Best 0.591 0.402
Average 0.675 0.416
Worst 0.697 0.459
Table 10
Emission coefcients of 57-Bus IEEE system.
G1 G2 G3 G6 G8 G9 G12
a 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.035 0.05 0.045 0.06
b 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05
c 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.035 0.045 0.05 0.05
n 0.00002 0.00005 0.00001 0.00002 0.00004 0.00001 0.00001
k 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 2 2 1.5
Fig. 7. Two-dimensional Pareto-optimal front.
A. Shabanpour-Haghighi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 77 (2014) 597607 605
Table 11
Best fuel cost of generators obtained by various optimization algorithms.
PG1 PG2 PG3 PG6 PG8 PG9 PG12 Total Generation Total Cost
GSA [35] 142.369 92.630 45.318 72.355 464.743 84.999 363.951 1266.365 41695.8717
EADDE [36] 143.15 95.29 45.32 73.60 464.85 83.44 361.24 1266.89 41713.62
HAPSO [37] 143.21 87.84 44.97 72.88 461.13 96.81 359.97 1266.81 41713.8868
TLBO 141.4505 85.6498 45.4567 75.0154 463.8289 93.0827 364.6708 1269.1548 41688.7431
MTLBO 142.6409 88.7977 45.0144 72.4740 459.9777 96.1366 359.9570 1264.9983 41638.3822
Table 12
Best fuel cost of generators obtained by TLBO and MTLBO algorithms.
41720
Best
41700
Average
41680 Worst
41660
41640
41620
41600
TLBO MTLBO
Fig. 8. Best, average and worst result of 30 trails for the total fuel cost of generators.
Table 14 Table 16
Control variables related to multi-objective problem for the TLBO and MTLBO D-Metric values in 30 trails.
methods.
TLBO MTLBO
Total fuel cost Total emission
Best 0.691 0.512
TLBO MTLBO TLBO MTLBO Average 0.701 0.546
Worst 0.762 0.603
PG1 141.4505 142.6409 235.867 236.042
PG2 85.6498 88.7977 99.9952 100
PG3 45.4567 45.0144 139.994 140
PG6 75.0154 72.4740 99.9954 100
PG8 463.8289 459.9777 292.5465 292.1019
6.2.2. Multi-objective OPF
PG9 93.0827 96.1366 99.9983 100
PG12 364.6708 359.9570 297.9174 297.7938 The Pareto-optimal front of the objective functions for the TLBO
VG1 1.0342 1.058 1.0592 1.06 and MTLBO methods are shown in Fig. 11. The mentioned criteri-
VG2 1.0356 1.06 1.06 1.06 ons for the MO-OPF are calculated and shown in Table 15 and
VG3 1.0299 1.0515 1.0538 1.06
Table 16. It is veried that the proposed MTLBO method has higher
VG6 1.0463 1.0599 1.0444 1.0572
VG8 1.06 1.06 1.047 1.06 C-Metric value and lower D-Metric value compared to the TLBO
VG9 1.0457 1.0573 1.0378 1.0505 algorithm that shows the proposed one has better performance
VG12 1.0251 1.0462 1.0291 1.0408 over the original technique.
T418 0.9556 0.9 0.9917 0.9
T418 1.0461 0.9 0.9023 0.9
T2021 1.0438 0.9828 1.0216 0.9823
T2425 0.9615 0.9001 1.0771 0.9 7. Conclusion
T2425 1.0081 0.9 1.0773 0.9
T2426 1.0332 1.0015 0.9822 0.9859
In this paper, a modied TLBO algorithm is analyzed to solve the
T729 0.9928 0.9 0.9011 0.9
T3234 0.9835 0.9 1.089 0.9 MO-OPF problem. As the TLBO is an algorithm-parameter-free, the
T1141 0.936 0.9 0.9002 0.9 performance of this technique is not affected by the algorithm
T1545 0.9416 0.9 0.915 0.9 parameters. A modied phase is added to the algorithm that in-
T1446 0.9338 0.9 0.9177 0.9 cludes a self-adaptive wavelet mutation strategy. Moreover, the
T1051 0.957 0.9057 0.9236 0.9106
proposed algorithm includes a fuzzy clustering technique to avoid
T1349 0.9079 0.9 0.9007 0.9
T1143 0.9191 0.9 0.9063 0.9 increasing repository size and a smart population approach is
T4056 1.0113 1.0118 1.0279 1.0115 utilized to efciently select the population required for the next
T3957 1.0344 0.9861 0.9709 0.9836 iteration of the algorithm. All of these modications bring out a
T955 1.0318 0.9076 0.9027 0.9
high convergence speed with great accuracy. The standard IEEE
QC18 0.1534 0.1524 0.1624 0.1569
QC25 0.1461 0.1505 0.1598 0.1681
30-Bus and 57-Bus systems are analyzed by the proposed method.
QC53 0.1572 0.1621 0.1432 0.1652 Two different case studies are used in this paper. At rst, the sin-
Cost 41688.7431 41638.3822 45606.52 45597.92
gle-objective OPF problem is solved by the suggested algorithm
Emission 1.9716 1.9152 1.0781 1.0772 to verify the performance of this method in comparison with other
optimization algorithms proposed in literatures. Accuracy, robust-
ness, and effect of population size on the proposed algorithm are
veried. In the next case study, the MTLBO is successfully used
to solve the MO-OPF. Two different criterions are used to compare
the optimal solutions obtained by different techniques. Results
verify that the implemented self-adaptive strategy has superior
performance and effectiveness over the original method.
References
[11] Rao R, Savsani V, Vakharia D. Teachinglearning-based optimization: an [24] Abido M. Optimal power ow using tabu search algorithm. Electr Power
optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inform Compon Syst 2002;30:46983.
Sci 2012;183:115. [25] Yuryevich J, Wong KP. Evolutionary programming based optimal power ow
[12] Niknam T, Golestaneh F, Sadeghi MS. H-Multiobjective teachinglearning- algorithm. Power Syst IEEE Trans 1999;14:124550.
based optimization for dynamic economic emission dispatch. Syst J IEEE [26] Costa AL, Costa AS. Energy and ancillary service dispatch through dynamic
2012;6:34152. optimal power ow. Electric Power Syst Res 2007;77:104755.
[13] AlRashidi M, El-Hawary M. Hybrid particle swarm optimization approach for [27] Sayah S, Zehar K. Modied differential evolution algorithm for optimal power
solving the discrete OPF problem considering the valve loading effects. Power ow with non-smooth cost functions. Energy Convers Manage
Syst IEEE Trans 2007;22:20308. 2008;49:303642.
[14] Basu M. Multi-objective optimal power ow with FACTS devices. Energy [28] Bouktir T, Slimani L, Mahdad B. Optimal power dispatch for large scale power
Convers Manage 2011;52:90310. system using stochastic search algorithms. Int J Power Energy Syst
[15] Niknam T, Narimani M, Aghaei J, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R. Improved particle 2008;28:118.
swarm optimization for multi-objective optimal power ow considering the [29] Bakirtzis AG, Biskas PN, Zoumas CE, Petridis V. Optimal power ow by
cost, loss, emission and voltage stability index. IET Gener Transm Distrib enhanced genetic algorithm. Power Syst IEEE Trans 2002;17:22936.
2012;6:51527. [30] Slimani L, Bouktir T. Economic power dispatch of power system with pollution
[16] Niknam T, Narimani M, Aghaei J, Tabatabaei S, Nayeripour M. Modied Honey control using multiobjective ant colony optimization. Int J Comput Intelligence
Bee Mating Optimization to solve dynamic optimal power ow considering Res (IJCIR). 2007;3:14553.
generator constraints. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2011;5:9891002. [31] Saini A, Chaturvedi DK, Saxena A. Optimal power ow solution: a GA-Fuzzy
[17] Niknam T, Narimani MR, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R. A new hybrid algorithm system approach. Int J Emer Elec Power Syst 2006;5:5.
for optimal power ow considering prohibited zones and valve point effect. [32] Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Zare M, Bahmani-Firouzi B. Reserve
Energy Convers Manage 2012;58:197206. constrained dynamic environmental/economic dispatch: a new multiobjective
[18] Ben Attous D, Labbi Y. Particle swarm optimization based optimal power ow self-adaptive learning bat algorithm. Syst J IEEE 2013.
for units with non-smooth fuel cost functions. Electrical and Electronics [33] Agrawal S, Dashora Y, Tiwari MK, Son Y-J. Interactive particle swarm: a pareto-
Engineering. ELECO 2009 International Conference on. IEEE 2009. p. I-377I- adaptive metaheuristic to multiobjective optimization systems, man and
81. cybernetics. Part A: systems and humans. IEEE Trans 2008;38:25877.
[19] Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Aghaei J. A new modied teaching [34] Wu L, Wang Y, Yuan X, Zhou S. Environmental/economic power dispatch
learning algorithm for reserve constrained dynamic economic dispatch. Power problem using multi-objective differential evolution algorithm. Electric Power
Syst IEEE Trans 2012. Syst Res 2010;80:117181.
[20] Niknam T, Jabbari M, Malekpour AR. A modied shufe frog leaping algorithm [35] Duman S, Gven U, Snmez Y, Yrkeren N. Optimal power ow using
for multi-objective optimal power ow. Energy 2011;36:642032. gravitational search algorithm. Energy Convers Manage 2012;59:8695.
[21] Agrawal S, Panigrahi B, Tiwari MK. Multiobjective particle swarm algorithm [36] Vaisakh K, Srinivas L. Evolving ant direction differential evolution for OPF with
with fuzzy clustering for electrical power dispatch. Evol Comput IEEE Trans non-smooth cost functions. Eng Appl Articial Intelligence 2011;24:42636.
2008;12:52941. [37] Mahdad B, Srairi K. Hierarchical adaptive PSO for multi-objective OPF
[22] Hazra J, Sinha A. A multi-objective optimal power ow using particle swarm considering emissions based shunt FACTS. IECON 2012-38th Annual
optimization. Eur Trans Electr Power 2011;21:102845. Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE2012. p. 133743.
[23] Alsac O, Stott B. Optimal load ow with steady-state security. Power
Apparatus Syst IEEE Trans 1974:74551.