Abstract
In order to solve the optimal power flow (OPF) problem, a unique algorithm based on a search and rescue method is applied in this study. For the OPF problem under three objective functions, the SAR offers a straightforward and reliable solution. The three objective functions are used to minimize the fuel cost, power loss and voltage deviation as a single objective function. The OPF problem for benchmark test system, including the IEEE-14 bus, IEEE-30 bus, and IEEE-57 bus, are solved by the Search and Rescue algorithm (SAR) under specific objective functions that are determined by the operational and economic performance indices of the power system. To demonstrate the efficacy and possibilities of the SAR algorithm, SAR is contrasted with alternative optimization techniques such as harmony search algorithm, gradient method, adaptive genetic algorithm, biogeography-based optimization, Artificial bee colony, gravitational search algorithm, particle swarm optimization, Jaya algorithm, enhanced genetic algorithm, modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm, practical swarm optimizer, Moth flam optimizer, whale and moth flam optimizer, grey wolf optimizer, cheap optimization algorithm and differential evolution algorithm. The value of minimum power losses based on SAR technique is equal to 0.459733441487247 MW for IEEE-14 bus. The value of minimum total fuel cost based on SAR technique is equal to 8051.12225602148 $/h for IEEE-14 bus. The value of minimum voltage deviation based on SAR technique is equal to 0.0357680148269292 for IEEE-14 bus. The value of minimum power losses based on SAR technique is equal to 2.71286428848434 MW for IEEE-30 bus. The value of minimum total fuel cost based on SAR technique is equal to 798.197578585806 $/h for IEEE-30 bus. The value of minimum voltage deviation based on SAR technique is equal to 0.0978069572088536 for IEEE-30 bus. The value of minimum total fuel cost based on SAR technique is equal to 38017.7691758245 $/h for IEEE-57 bus. The acquired results for the OPF compared to all competitor algorithms in every case of fitness function demonstrate the superiority of the SAR method.
Keywords: Search and rescue algorithm, Optimal power flow, Power system
Subject terms: Computer science, Energy science and technology
Introduction
Technical economical operation is the most important issue in electric utilities. The scheduling of the energy generation to reduce the cost of energy generation with reliability of meet al.l operating load demand is the main objective of power system operation. The optimal operation in power system is a non-linear system and a complex problem in optimization, that is solved using optimal power flow as a main objective function. The optimal power flow (OPF) is solved in two ways, meta-heuristic optimization algorithms and mathematical methods. Some variables in the power system need control by preserving its value in the constraints of system to achieve the best schedule in optimal power flow problem1–5.
The mathematical methods used in OPF solution are several such as linear and non-linear programming (LP-NLP)6,7, interior point method8, quadratic programming9, Newton-based method10 and gradient projection method2. These methods have demerits such as accuracy is not guaranteed, convergence is poor, complexity of methods is high and initial guess is required for some method. Therefore, the dependence on metaheuristic algorithms are necessary to overcome these demerits.
Several metaheuristic algorithms are used in OPF such as sine cosine algorithm5, genetic algorithm and its improvement11–13, practical swarm optimization and its improvement14–16, hybrid algorithm of the shuffle frog leaping algorithm and practical swarm optimization algorithm17, shuffle frog leaping algorithm18, biogeography based optimizer19, a chaotic invasive weed optimization algorithm20, teaching-learning-based optimization21, modified imperialist competitive algorithm22, moth swarm algorithm23, a modified bacteria foraging algorithm24, the backtracking search algorithm25, Social spider optimization26, improved adaptive differential evolution27, decentralized consensus algorithm28, hybrid particle swarm and slap optimization algorithm29, an improved adaptive differential evolution27, an Analytical adaptive distributed multi-objective optimization algorithm30, A heuristic benders-decomposition-based algorithm31 and an adaptive multiple teams perturbation-guiding Jaya algorithm32.
A number of effective metaheuristic algorithms have been put out recently to effectively address a range of optimization issues33–37. The African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AVOA) was introduced in33 and is used to solve engineering problems and benchmark functions. AOA34 is an algorithm for arithmetic optimization that was developed to tackle a variety of mechanical issues, including tension/compression spring design and welding beam design. The artificial gorilla troops’ optimizer (GTO) was introduced in35 and is used to resolve engineering challenges and benchmark routines. AHA, or the artificial hummingbird algorithm, was developed36 to tackle difficult engineering design problems and numerical test functions. The marine predator’s algorithm (MPA) was presented in37 as a solution to engineering benchmarks, test functions, and practical engineering design issues. The majority of these, nevertheless, have never been looked into in MaOPF issues. Numerous optimization issues across multiple domains, including Optimal power flow38–41, identification of solar cell parameters42–45, economic load dispatch46–49 and several issues. In this work, the search and rescue optimization will be used for solving the problem of optimal power flow. IEEE 57-bus, IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 14-bus systems are used for testing the proposed optimization algorithm. Comparison between the simulation results and the reported results from literature works is performed for measure the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
The main contributions of this work can be summarized as follow:
The problem of OPF will be solved with a new optimization algorithm called search and rescue algorithm (SAR).
Three single fitness functions and multi-objective function are applied on IEEE 57-bus, IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 14-bus system as a cases study.
The first objective function is minimizing the total cost of fuels associated with power production.
The second objective function is minimizing the voltage deviation.
The third objective function is minimizing the total power losses.
The fourth objective function is minimizing the cost in addition to the voltage deviation as a multi-objective function.
The effectiveness and superiority of the proposed algorithm (SAR) in solving OPF problem is performed by comparison its results with most recently previous optimization algorithms such as harmony search algorithm, gradient method, adaptive genetic algorithm, biogeography-based optimization, Artificial bee colony, gravitational search algorithm, particle swarm optimization, Jaya algorithm, enhanced genetic algorithm, modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm, practical swarm optimizer, Moth flam optimizer, whale and moth flam optimizer, grey wolf optimizer, cheap optimization algorithm and differential evolution algorithm.
This work is structured as follows: section two describes the optimal power flow problem. In Section Three, the suggested SAR algorithm is described. The cases study results are analyzed in part four, and the conclusion is presented in section five.
Analysis of the OPF problem
The OPF problem is conceptualized as a kind of nonlinear optimization problem. Finding the optimal configurations for the power system control variables that maximize predetermined system objectives while observing system restrictions is its main goal5,58. The issue is written mathematically as5,58:
 |
1 |
 |
2 |
 |
3 |
where, respectively, U and X are the vectors of the control and dependent variables. In Eq. (1), the fitness function to be optimized is denoted by
. The equality and inequality system constraints are represented by the functions 
and 
respectively.
The balance of active and reactive powers at all system buses is a requirement for equality. The inequality constraints entail maintaining the load bus voltage (
), switchable VAR compensations (
), transformer tap (T) and generator voltage (
) limits.
The following system variables make up the state vector X5,58:
The slack bus generator’s actual output power (
).The load-bus voltage level (
).The generator produces
of reactive power.The transmission lines’ power flow (
)
The state vector X can be expressed mathematically as:
 |
4 |
where NG, NL, NTL, and STL stand for respective numbers of generators, load buses, transmission lines, transmission line loading.
The vector of decision variables (U) is involving of generator voltages 
, real power outputs from generator 
excluding the slack, Shunt VAR compensations 
and tap settings 
. As a result, the control parameters vector (U) can be described as the following form5,58:
 |
5 |
where NT and NC stand for the relative numbers of regulating transformers and shunt VAR compensators.
OPF fitness function
In order to solve the OPF problem, four objectives are tested in this work: an economic problem (i.e., reducing the total fuel costs associated with power production); an operational issue regarding the voltage deviation; a practical challenge regarding the power losses; and a practical challenge regarding the cost in addition to the voltage deviation as a multi-objective function.
The first OPF fitness function (OPFFF1)
The OPFFF1 is to reduce the overall fuel costs for the contracted power generators. It can be stated as follows5,58:
 |
6 |
where 
, 
, and 
are the 
generator’s cost coefficients. where 
,
and 
are the coefficients of 
generator cost according to fuel type m.
The second OPF fitness function (OPFFF2)
The OPFFF2 is to reduce the active power transmission losses. It can be stated as follows5,58:
 |
7 |
where 
is the voltage angle difference between buses 
, 
is the conductance of the branch between buses 
, The magnitudes of voltage at buses 
are 
respectively.
The third OPF fitness function (OPFFF3)
The OPFFF3 is to reduce the voltage deviation of each load bus. The voltage deviation is formally represented as follows5,58:
 |
8 |
The fourth OPF fitness function (OPFFF4)
The OPFFF4 is a multi-objective fitness function. It aims to reduce the fuel cost and the voltage deviation. The OPFFF4 is formally represented as follows5,58:
 |
9 |
where the weighting factor is represented by 
= 20058. Equation (9) integrates two weighted objectives into a single equation to efficiently handle the multi-objective problem. This objective function seeks to simultaneously minimize the fuel cost and the voltage variation.
Power system operational constraints
For varied operating scenarios, equality and inequality constraints, two forms of operational constraints for power systems, must be taken into account:
Equality constraints
The active and reactive power balance is represented by the power balance constraints. These restrictions are represented as follows5,58:
 |
10 |
 |
11 |
Where, 
, 
: The 
generator bus’s active and reactive power, respectively 
, 
: The 
load bus’s active and reactive power, respectively. Total active and reactive network losses are denoted by 
and 
, respectively. 
is the reactive compensation power for bus 
.
Inequality constraints
The constraints of voltages of generation buses are as follow5,58:
 |
12 |
The constraints of reactive generation power from buses are as follow:
 |
13 |
The constraints of transformer taps are as follow:
 |
14 |
The constraints of shunt compensation units are as follow:
 |
15 |
The constraints of load buses voltage are as follow:
 |
16 |
Search and Rescue Optimization Method
This section presents the mathematical model of SAR algorithm to solve the ‘‘minimization problem”. In which, the humans’ position confronts the solution for the optimization problem whereas the clue significance reached in this position denotes the fitness for that solution. An optimal solution indicates a clue with high significance and vice versa50.
For solving optimization issues, Shabani, Amir, et al.50 have proposed a new metaheuristic algorithm called Search and rescue optimization technique (SAR). In SAR, the fitness for the solution is obtained from the human position that corresponds to the solution of the significance of the clue found. A better solution represents a more significant clue, and vice versa. An overview of the main steps for the SAR algorithm is summarized as follows:
Clues
Information on clues collected by group members during the search operation. Some clues are left, but the associate information is stored in a memory matrix called “matrix M” to utilize to select the most significant clues. Whereas the positions of humans are saved in a matrix called “matrix X”, with 
is the problem’s dimension and the number of group members denotes by N. But the found clues are generated using Eq. (17) to act on the Clues matrix called “matrix C”. Moreover, in each human search phase, the previous three matrices (X, M, and C) are updated.
 |
17 |
where, memory and humans’ positions matrices are denoted by M and X, respectively. The position of the 1st dimension is denoted by 
for the 
human and the position of the 
dimension is denoted by 
for the1st memory.
Social phase
The clue among the clues found is randomly calculated using Eq. (18) to obtain the search direction.
 |
18 |
where the position of the 
human is indicated by 
, the position of the clue 
is indicated by 
, and the search direction for the 
human is indicated by 
is a random integer number within [1, 2 N] and
.
The binomial crossover operator is applied to ensure that all dimensions of 
are not changed. Equation (19) is used for the social phase to compute the new position of the 
human in all dimensions as follows:
 |
19 |
where the 
dimension is the new position is denoted by 
. The position of the 
dimension is denoted by 
for the clue 
. The values of the objective function are defined by 
) and 
. 
is a uniformly distributed random number within [-1, 1] and is fixed for all dimensions. But 
is a random number with a uniform distribution within [0, 1] and not fixed as 
A random integer number within [1 and D] is denoted by 
and 
is a parameter within [0, 1].
Individual phase
The new position of the 
human search around their current position is computed as follows:
 |
20 |
where m and k are random numbers within [1, 2 N], and is set as 
to prevent movement along other clues. In addition, 
is a uniformly distributed random number within [0, 1].
Boundary control
The new position of the 
human, the social, and individual phases are modified using Eq. (21).
 |
21 |
where the values of the minimum and maximum threshold are denoted by 
and 
for the 
dimension.
Updating information and positions
The new position and the random position of the memory matrix (M) are computed using Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) respectively.
 |
22 |
 |
23 |
where 
is the position of the 
stored clue in the memory matrix.
Abandoning clues
For each group member, Unsuccessful Search Number (USN) is set to 0 for a human finds more significant clues else increased by 1 using Eq. (24).
 |
24 |
where the number of times the 
human is denoted by 
. Equation (25) is used to change current solution with a random solution in the search space if 
.
 |
25 |
where 
is a uniformly distributed random number within [0, 1] and various with each dimension.
The technique of constraint-handling
The penalty functions methods called 
-constrained method is applied in SAR algorithm for a maximization problem based on Eq. (26).
 |
26 |
To controls the size of feasible space, the 
parameter is used. It is calculated by Eq. (27).
 |
27 |
where 
is the number of the current iteration. The 
smallest violation of constraints denoted by
in the initial population. 
and 
are two parameters used to truncate 
and control the speed of reducing feasible space, respectively.
In addition to constraint optimization problems, therefore, Eqs. (21), (22), (23), and (24) are modeled as follows:
 |
28 |
 |
29 |
 |
30 |
 |
31 |
The SAR method flowchart is described in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
SAR method flow chart.
Experimental results and analysis
To demonstrate the functionality of the suggested SAR algorithm, three examined scenarios based on the IEEE 30-bus, IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 57-bus test systems are conducted. The parameters of SAR method are 30 for population size, and number of evaluation is 10,000. Successful validations of the suggested SAR and other algorithms such as harmony search algorithm51, gradient method5, Artificial bee colony52, gravitational search algorithm53, particle swarm optimization53, Jaya algorithm54, enhanced genetic algorithm55, modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm18, differential evolution algorithm46,56, and biogeography-based optimization47 are performed on these systems. The cases under study are divided into four main fitness function:
Case 1
Reducing fuel cost for generators.
Case 2
Reducing bus voltage deviation.
Case 3
Reducing active power losses.
Case4
Reducing the fuel cost and the voltage deviation as a multi objective function.
MATLAB R2015b software and Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10–2.70 GHz hardware with Windows User 10 Pro and 8 GB RAM were used for the independent runs.
Simulation results of IEEE 14 bus system
Figure 2 displays the IEEE 14-bus test system’s single line diagram. It has 9 load nodes and 5 generators. The system statistics and operating conditions are presented in58. Three regulating transformers are located in lines 5–6, 4–9, and 4–7, and five generators are located at buses 8, 6, 3, 2, and 1.
Fig. 2.
Block diagram of IEEE 14-bus system.
The buses’ voltage magnitudes are seen as ranging between [
]. The regulating transformers’ tap settings lie between the voltage range of [
.].
Results of OPFFF1 for IEEE 14-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 1 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 14-bus system based on OPFFF1, that include the optimum fuel cost (objective function), voltage deviations, power loss, and control parameters settings.
Table 1.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 14-bus system.
| Parameters | units | Max limit | Min limit | Best value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 200 | 0 | 196.675310292454 |
| P2 | MW | 140 | 0 | 36.9230673923451 |
| P3 | MW | 100 | 0 | 27.2980711096558 |
| P6 | MW | 100 | 0 | 1.53675137934193e-06 |
| P8 | MW | 100 | 0 | 6.85149614064009 |
| V1 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.09999999554954 |
| V2 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.08237227820989 |
| V3 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.05819172799031 |
| V6 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.08492218633077 |
| V8 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.09999996356976 |
| T4-7 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.985358159802891 |
| T4-9 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.09999978473857 |
| T5-6 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.00590965534685 |
| QC14 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.99988370305641 |
| Fitness function (Total cost of fuel in ($/h)) | 8051.12225602148 | |||
| Power losses in MW | 8.75794646073728 | |||
| Voltage deviation | 0.645803229801324 | |||
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed with several methods such as practical swarm optimizer (PSO), Moth flam optimizer (MFO), whale and moth flam optimizer (WMFO), grey wolf optimizer (GWO), and cheap optimization algorithm (ChOA). Table 2 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF1, also the power loss is including in this table. Figure 3 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach the best solution of OPFFF1 for IEEE 14-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 2; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (total fuel cost) compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 8051.12225602148 $/h. The order of algorithms based on the best fuel cost is SAR, MFO, WMFO, PSO, GWO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is SAR, PSO, WMFO, MFO, GWO, and ChOA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF1 of IEEE 14-bus system.
Table 2.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Fig. 3.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Results of OPFFF2 for IEEE 14-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 3 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 14-bus system based on OPFFF2, that include the fuel cost, the optimum voltage deviations (objective function), power loss.
Table 3.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF2 for IEEE 14-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Best value |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 2.93397270953455 |
| P2 | MW | 115.306330604569 |
| P3 | MW | 4.48038946406919 |
| P6 | MW | 40.3951253628995 |
| P8 | MW | 99.8941703336029 |
| V1 |
|
0.999670186231509 |
| V2 |
|
1.00038375267525 |
| V3 |
|
0.999856284023542 |
| V6 |
|
1.00874226264043 |
| V8 |
|
1.02654389444729 |
| T4-7 | -- | 1.01393163540060 |
| T4-9 | -- | 1.07013425188454 |
| T5-6 | -- | 1.06253669273422 |
| QC14 | MVAR | 4.98510379628612 |
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 11596.1581994691 | |
| Power losses in MW | 4.00743987612710 | |
| Fitness function (Voltage deviation) | 0.0357680148269292 | |
Figure 4 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach the best solution of OPFFF2 for IEEE 14-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 3; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (voltage deviation) with value 0.035768014826929 compared with its value as in case OPFFF1 equal to 0.645803229801324. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance in this work for the OPFFF2 of IEEE 14-bus system.
Fig. 4.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF2 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Results of OPFFF3 for IEEE 14-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 4 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 14-bus system based on OPFFF3, that include the optimum fuel cost, voltage deviations (objective function), power loss.
Table 4.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF3 for IEEE 14-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Best value |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 0.244656771401016 |
| P2 | MW | 21.6410969619936 |
| P3 | MW | 94.4225728850474 |
| P6 | MW | 46.7021482615347 |
| P8 | MW | 96.4589227187924 |
| V1 |
|
1.04436783036729 |
| V2 |
|
1.04415997450881 |
| V3 |
|
1.04394618915954 |
| V6 |
|
1.05901961788393 |
| V8 |
|
1.09999618380480 |
| T4-7 | -- | 1.00214096595492 |
| T4-9 | -- | 1.09994598905619 |
| T5-6 | -- | 1.00499140591328 |
| QC14 | MVAR | 4.99802255741571 |
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 10262.1580412576 | |
| Fitness function (Power losses in MW) | 0.459733441487247 | |
| Voltage deviation | 0.419330368553937 | |
Figure 5 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach to the best solution of OPFFF3 for IEEE 14-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 4; the SAR algorithm achieve the best objective function (power loss) with value 0.459733441487247 compared with its value as in case OPFFF1 equal to 8.75794646073728. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance in this work for the OPFFF3 of IEEE 14-bus system.
Fig. 5.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF3 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Results of OPFFF4 for IEEE 14-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 5 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 14-bus system based on OPFFF4, that include the optimum fuel cost, voltage deviations (objective function), power loss.
Table 5.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 14-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Best value |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 197.127887976055 |
| P2 | MW | 36.9805125739630 |
| P3 | MW | 27.5945955959562 |
| P6 | MW | 0.000563735380294885 |
| P8 | MW | 6.28990109376045 |
| V1 |
|
1.09999958459040 |
| V2 |
|
1.08049491759772 |
| V3 |
|
1.04978668797757 |
| V6 |
|
1.01738240151780 |
| V8 |
|
1.04512711237670 |
| T4-7 | -- | 0.900019420961687 |
| T4-9 | -- | 1.08910987239498 |
| T5-6 | -- | 1.00676316882710 |
| QC14 | MVAR | 4.99959881691876 |
| Fitness function (Total cost of fuel in ($/h)) | 8059.56165483559 | |
| Power losses in MW | 9.00041913011900 | |
| Fitness function (Voltage deviation) | 0.115870519085356 | |
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed with several methods such as practical swarm optimizer (PSO), Moth flam optimizer (MFO), whale and moth flam optimizer (WMFO), grey wolf optimizer (GWO), and cheap optimization algorithm (ChOA). Table 6 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF1, also the power loss is included in this table. Figure 6 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach the best solution of OPFFF4 for IEEE 14-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 6; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (total fuel cost) compared with the other methods. The value of cost based on the fitness function extracted from SAR technique is equal to 8059.56165483559 $/h. The value of voltage deviation based on the fitness function extracted from SAR technique is equal to 0.115870519085356. The order of algorithms based on the best fuel cost is SAR, WMFO, MFO, GWO, PSO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is SAR, MFO, WMFO, PSO, GWO, and ChOA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF4 of IEEE 14-bus system.
Table 6.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Fig. 6.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 14-bus system.
Simulation results of IEEE 30 bus system
Figure 7 displays the IEEE 30-bus test system’s single line diagram. It has 24 load nodes and 6 generators. The system statistics and operating conditions are presented in5,58. Four regulating transformers are located in lines 6–10, 6–9, 27–28, and 4–12, and six generators are located at buses 13, 11, 8, 5, 2, and 1. In addition, buses 29, 24, 23, 21, 20, 17, ,15, 12, and 10 include sources of reactive power.
Fig. 7.
Block diagram of IEEE 30-bus system.
The buses’ voltage magnitudes are seen as ranging between [
]. The regulating transformers’ tap settings lie between the voltage range of [
.]. The MVAR shunt capacitor ratings vary between 0 and 5. Permissible operation limitations [
.] apply to the load buses. Table 7 display the generator cost curve data for the IEEE 30-bus test system.
Table 7.
Parameters coefficient of generators for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Bus | C 
|
b 
|
a 
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 0.025 | 3 | 0 |
| 11 | 0.025 | 3 | 0 |
| 8 | 0.00834 | 3.25 | 0 |
| 5 | 0.0625 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 0.0175 | 1.75 | 0 |
| 1 | 0.00375 | 2 | 0 |
Results of OPFFF1 for IEEE 30-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 8 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 30-bus system based on OPFFF1, that include the optimum fuel cost (objective function), voltage deviations, power loss, and control parameters settings.
Table 8.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Max limit | Min limit | Best value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 200 | 50 | 178.414192084461 |
| P2 | MW | 80 | 20 | 48.7329094315295 |
| P5 | MW | 50 | 15 | 21.0888527342911 |
| P8 | MW | 35 | 10 | 20.7472465173017 |
| P11 | MW | 30 | 10 | 11.7372914792274 |
| P13 | MW | 40 | 12 | 11.1611625186174 |
| V1 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.13851922405740 |
| V2 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.11949682757984 |
| V5 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.08868437369405 |
| V8 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.09589696926968 |
| V11 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.04861211036109 |
| V13 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.11381890405985 |
| T11 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.937437520030738 |
| T12 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.03475077231005 |
| T15 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.983194859186078 |
| T36 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.01392751240078 |
| QC10 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.15004331752991 |
| QC12 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 6.71692479945985 |
| QC15 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.85869652401398 |
| QC17 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 6.75663842039920 |
| QC20 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.82674116255692 |
| QC21 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 11.7303296097117 |
| QC23 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.59736550237822 |
| QC24 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 1.24145613293041 |
| QC29 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.14346861231495 |
| Fitness function (Total cost of fuel in ($/h)) | 798.197578585806 | |||
| Power losses in MW | 8.49155243457396 | |||
| Voltage deviation | 2.07934784296484 | |||
The proposed SAR algorithm is composited with several methods such as gradient method (GM), adaptive genetic algorithm (AGA), Artificial bee colony (ABC), gravitational search algorithm (GSA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), Jaya algorithm (JAYA), modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm (MSFLA), and differential evolution algorithm (DE). Table 9 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF1, also the power loss is including in this table. Figure 8 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach to the best solution of OPFFF1. Based on the recorded data in Table 9; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (total fuel cost) compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 798.197578585806 $/h. The order of algorithms based on the fuel cost is SAR, MSCA, AGA-POP, SCA, JAYA, GSA and PSO, WMFO, ABC, MSFLA, DE, GM, GWO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is SAR, MSCA, AGA-POP, ABC, GSA and PSO, SCA, WMFO, JAYA, GWO, DE, MSFLA, GM and ChOA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF1 of IEEE 30-bus system.
Table 9.
Comparison between SAR method and others methods based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Algorithm | Fuel cost | Power losses |
|---|---|---|
| SAR | 798.197578585806 | 8.49155243457396 |
| GM5 | 804.853 | 10.486 |
| MSFLA18 | 802.287 | 9.6991 |
| ABC52 | 800.66 | 9.0328 |
| JAYA54 | 800.4794 | 9.06481 |
| GSA and PSO53 | 800.49589 | 9.0339 |
| AGA-POP13 | 799.8441 | 8.9166 |
| DE46 | 802.394 | 9.466 |
| SCA5 | 800.1018 | 9.0633 |
| MSCA5 | 799.31 | 8.7327 |
| GWO58 | 803.375 | 9.082 |
| ChOA58 | 818.495 | 11.236 |
| WMFO58 | 800.603 | 9.066 |
Fig. 8.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Results of OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the voltage deviation (OPFFF2). Table 10 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for OPFFF2, that include voltage deviations (objective function), power loss, total fuel cost, and control parameter settings.
Table 10.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Parameters | units | Max limit | Min limit | Best value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 200 | 50 | 55.0231402967134 |
| P2 | MW | 80 | 20 | 55.6114263066869 |
| P5 | MW | 50 | 15 | 56.5433457728002 |
| P8 | MW | 35 | 10 | 61.0616642165355 |
| P11 | MW | 30 | 10 | 18.9070554552523 |
| P13 | MW | 40 | 12 | 39.5951079306953 |
| V1 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00564529846452 |
| V2 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00761927284532 |
| V5 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00717581492474 |
| V8 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.01834251696240 |
| V11 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 0.953134539424718 |
| V13 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 0.998991760153556 |
| T11 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.02434509501019 |
| T12 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.976683778076507 |
| T15 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.02019960465305 |
| T36 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.03594769876269 |
| QC10 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 1.03015651450185 |
| QC12 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.90122355278198 |
| QC15 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.13913068948280 |
| QC17 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.11862821323234 |
| QC20 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 6.89924453121801 |
| QC21 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 7.17033696271725 |
| QC23 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.15135670017700 |
| QC24 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 7.22684077674516 |
| QC29 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.05394862283341 |
| Fitness function (Voltage deviation) | 0.0978069572088536 | |||
| Power losses in MW | 3.35090200543612 | |||
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 982.389875241927 | |||
The proposed SAR algorithm is composited with several methods such as harmony search algorithm (HS)51, biogeography-based optimization (BBO)57, Jaya algorithm (JAYA)54, sine cosine algorithm (SCA), and its modification5 for objective function of OPFFF2. Table 11 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF2, that include real power loss and voltage deviation. Figure 9 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach the best solution of OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 11; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (voltage deviation) compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 0.0978069572088536. The order of methods based on the fuel cost is SAR, BBO, HS, MSCA, SCA, and JAYA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is SAR, HS, BBO, MSCA, JAYA, and SCA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work of OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Table 11.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Fig. 9.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF2 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Results of OPFFF3 for IEEE 30-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the real power losses (OPFFF3). Table 12 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for OPFFF3, that include power loss (objective function), voltage deviations, total fuel cost, and control parameter settings.
Table 12.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF3 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Parameters | units | Max limit | Min limit | Best value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 200 | 50 | 50.4237130469997 |
| P2 | MW | 80 | 20 | 49.0161819773966 |
| P5 | MW | 50 | 15 | 49.9583643572817 |
| P8 | MW | 35 | 10 | 40.6231402443484 |
| P11 | MW | 30 | 10 | 51.3136576960585 |
| P13 | MW | 40 | 12 | 44.7682582266897 |
| V1 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.06469526713309 |
| V2 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.05542297903514 |
| V5 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.04086718903500 |
| V8 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.04576864743066 |
| V11 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.03909969148273 |
| V13 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.09616332432340 |
| T11 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.964034752738131 |
| T12 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.09543643378739 |
| T15 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.00152249176317 |
| T36 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.990276943033739 |
| QC10 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 7.32792717698242 |
| QC12 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 5.66401527789931 |
| QC15 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.27601610944955 |
| QC17 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.29185999758433 |
| QC20 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.73055818040562 |
| QC21 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 2.09058796685088 |
| QC23 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 0.906994812587805 |
| QC24 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 6.88316617591059 |
| QC29 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 5.64246405374752 |
| Power losses in MW | 2.71286428848434 | |||
| Voltage deviation | 1.34433424745398 | |||
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 994.119978261098 | |||
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed of several methods such as harmony search algorithm34, Artificial bee colony52, Jaya algorithm54, enhanced genetic algorithm55, modified sine cosine algorithm5. Table 13 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF3, that include power loss (objective function), and voltage deviation. Figure 10 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach the best solution of OPFFF3. Based on the recorded data in Table 13; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (power losses) compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 2.71286428848434 MW. The order of methods based on the power losses is SAR, MSCA, HS, JAYA, ABC, and EGA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for OPFFF3 of IEEE 30-bus system.
Table 13.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF3 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Fig. 10.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF3 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Results of OPFFF4 for IEEE 30-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the real power losses (OPFFF4). Table 14 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for OPFFF4, that include the value of multi-objective function, the power loss, voltage deviations, total fuel cost, and control parameter settings.
Table 14.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Parameters | units | Max limit | Min limit | Best value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | W | 200 | 50 | 172.250098007987 |
| P2 | W | 80 | 20 | 48.0911958995797 |
| P5 | W | 50 | 15 | 21.6026540840626 |
| P8 | W | 35 | 10 | 25.8023463918586 |
| P11 | W | 30 | 10 | 12.7981814019926 |
| P13 | W | 40 | 12 | 13.3634370125359 |
| V1 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.01673965603912 |
| V2 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 0.999947291366025 |
| V5 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00003528109290 |
| V8 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.01594171486256 |
| V11 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00000199092240 |
| V13 |
|
1.1 | 0.95 | 1.00001055743770 |
| T11 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.983530250128821 |
| T12 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.00208650914258 |
| T15 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.02529894499459 |
| T36 | -- | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.03288913034679 |
| QC10 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.79747617073683 |
| QC12 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.94039445156757 |
| QC15 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.98564852976735 |
| QC17 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.25278591814e-05 |
| QC20 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.99999522745882 |
| QC21 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.06666047293714 |
| QC23 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.99583992228270 |
| QC24 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 4.98277516683647 |
| QC9 | MVAR | 5 | 0 | 3.46321406787813 |
| Multi-objective fitness function | 834.762531525182 | |||
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 807.620125852399 | |||
| Voltage deviation | 0.102930119375242 | |||
| Power losses in MW | 10.5166452462514 | |||
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed of several methods such as practical swarm optimizer (PSO), moth flam optimizer (MFO), grey wolf optimizer (GWO), and cheap optimization algorithm (ChOA). Table 15 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF4 of IEEE 30-bus system, also the power loss is including in this table. Figure 11 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach to the best solution of OPFFF4 for IEEE 30-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 15, the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (total fuel cost) compared with the other methods. The value of cost based on the fitness function extracted from SAR technique is equal to 807.620125852399 $/h. The value of voltage deviation based on the fitness function extracted from SAR technique is equal to 0.102930119375242. The order of algorithms based on the best fuel cost is SAR, GWO, MFO, PSO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the best voltage deviation are SAR, MFO, GWO, PSO and ChOA. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF4 of IEEE 30-bus system.
Table 15.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 30-bus system.
| Algorithm | Fuel cost | Voltage deviation | Power losses |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAR | 807.620125852399 | 0.102930119375242 | 10.5166452462514 |
| PSO | 810.931 | 0.241 | 10.151 |
| GWO | 807.675 | 0.156 | 9.908 |
| MFO | 810.816 | 0.191 | 10.496 |
| ChOA | 813.642 | 0.375 | 8.357 |
Fig. 11.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 30-bus system.
Simulation results of IEEE 57-bus system
Figure 12 displays the IEEE 57-bus test system’s single line diagram58. It has 50 load nodes and 7 generators. seventeen regulating transformers are in lines 4–18, 20–21, 24–25, 24–26, 7–29, 32–34, 11–41, 15–54, 14–46, 10–51, 13–49, 11–43, 40–56, 39–57 and 9–55, and seven generators are located at buses 12, 9, 8, 6, 3, 2, and 1. In addition, buses 53, 25 and 18 include sources of reactive power. The buses’ voltage magnitudes are seen as ranging between [
]. The regulating transformers’ tap settings lie between the voltage range of [
.]. The MVAR shunt capacitor ratings vary between 0 and 30 MVAR. Permissible operation limitations [
.] apply to the load buses.
Fig. 12.
Block diagram of IEEE 57-bus system.
Results of OPFFF1 for IEEE 57-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 16 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 57-bus system based on OPFFF1, that include the optimum fuel cost (objective function), voltage deviations, power loss, and control parameters settings.
Table 16.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 57-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Best value |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 6.00840125151341 |
| P2 | MW | 51.5023736273341 |
| P3 | MW | 132.143966797945 |
| P6 | MW | 66.9564451237570 |
| P8 | MW | 383.811124055354 |
| P9 | MW | 80.3378444397889 |
| P12 | MW | 370.745389656906 |
| VG1 |
|
1.01733624166360 |
| VG2 |
|
1.04137048038009 |
| VG3 |
|
0.977473433274265 |
| VG6 |
|
1.05510357735388 |
| VG8 |
|
1.09604070411900 |
| VG9 |
|
0.978159884440329 |
| VG12 |
|
0.989031144748093 |
| T(4–18) | -- | 0.903509898087040 |
| T(4–18) | -- | 1.08335005955890 |
| T(21 − 20) | -- | 0.988636319330648 |
| T(24–25) | -- | 0.963710995235425 |
| T(24–25) | -- | 0.975008831434853 |
| T(24–26) | -- | 1.06101777242923 |
| T(7–29) | -- | 0.965063748627241 |
| T(34 − 32) | -- | 1.00659660019694 |
| T(11–41) | -- | 1.04306152548546 |
| T(15–45) | -- | 0.908049360191816 |
| T(14–46) | -- | 0.942731489012128 |
| T(10–51) | -- | 0.963699553605685 |
| T(13–49) | -- | 0.968865924185937 |
| T(11–43) | -- | 1.08547643551808 |
| T(40–56) | -- | 1.07899630299445 |
| T(39–57) | -- | 0.987235881500356 |
| T(9–55) | -- | 0.951257830325875 |
| QC18 | MVAR | 5.90570466498343 |
| QC25 | MVAR | 1.67558616289805 |
| QC53 | MVAR | 2.87542226410348 |
| Fitness function (Total cost of fuel in ($/h)) | 38017.7691758245 | |
| Power losses in MW | 21.5490022790274 | |
| Voltage deviation | 1.93753027811899 | |
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed of several methods such as practical swarm optimizer (PSO), Moth flam optimizer (MFO), whale and moth flam optimizer (WMFO), grey wolf optimizer (GWO), and cheap optimization algorithm (ChOA). Table 17 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF1, also the power loss is included in this table. Figure 13 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach to the best solution of OPFFF1 for IEEE 57-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 17; the SAR algorithm achieves the best objective function (total fuel cost) compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 38017.7691758245 $/h. The order of algorithms based on the best fuel cost is SAR, WMFO, MFO, GWO, PSO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is GWO, SAR, ChOA, PSO, MFO, and WMFO. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF1 of IEEE 57-bus system.
Table 17.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 57-bus system.
Fig. 13.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF1 for IEEE 57-bus system.
Results of OPFFF4 for IEEE 57-bus system
The main fitness function discussed in this subsection is minimizing the total cost of fuel. Table 18 displays the best configurations for OPF based on SAR technique for IEEE 57-bus system based on OPFFF4, that include the optimum objective function, the fuel cost, voltage deviations, power loss, and control parameters settings.
Table 18.
Best parameters solution of OPF problem extracted from SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 57-bus system.
| Parameters | Units | Best value |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | MW | 9.35306308222966 |
| P2 | MW | 97.2005930412181 |
| P3 | MW | 4.73594910634648 |
| P6 | MW | 92.5356343379376 |
| P8 | MW | 420.214467860132 |
| P9 | MW | 36.3273731019229 |
| P12 | MW | 372.226902756100 |
| VG1 |
|
1.01245078599529 |
| VG2 |
|
1.04703820490466 |
| VG3 |
|
1.09162670600981 |
| VG6 |
|
1.07466065173269 |
| VG8 |
|
1.00143357392005 |
| VG9 |
|
0.957153096032730 |
| VG12 |
|
1.02925693045474 |
| T(4–18) | -- | 0.999097898729473 |
| T(4–18) | -- | 0.961149358622265 |
| T(21 − 20) | -- | 0.922860077601741 |
| T(24–25) | -- | 0.976200460881450 |
| T(24–25) | -- | 1.07622483749020 |
| T(24–26) | -- | 1.09618567080478 |
| T(7–29) | -- | 1.06719937027143 |
| T(34 − 32) | -- | 1.09010340653652 |
| T(11–41) | -- | 0.924892358392570 |
| T(15–45) | -- | 0.928728393319768 |
| T(14–46) | -- | 0.981092464144505 |
| T(10–51) | -- | 0.926148269334560 |
| T(13–49) | -- | 0.900962960154972 |
| T(11–43) | -- | 0.990201146803200 |
| T(40–56) | -- | 0.985010866900965 |
| T(39–57) | -- | 0.979723758645620 |
| T(9–55) | -- | 1.04733457250927 |
| QC18 | MVAR | 2.12011988031527 |
| QC25 | MVAR | 27.3021690341606 |
| QC53 | MVAR | 28.1225098699415 |
| Multi-objective fitness function | 34207.5535252330 | |
| Total cost of fuel in ($/h) | 33772.3031281152 | |
| Power losses in MW | 28.6592639736805 | |
| Voltage deviation | 2.17625198558870 | |
The proposed SAR algorithm is composed of several methods such as practical swarm optimizer (PSO), Moth flam optimizer (MFO), whale and moth flam optimizer (WMFO), grey wolf optimizer (GWO), and cheap optimization algorithm (ChOA). Table 19 displays the best fitness function for OPF based on SAR technique and all comparator methods for OPFFF1, also the power loss is included in this table. Figure 14 explains the convergence curve of SAR method to reach to the best solution of OPFFF4 for IEEE 57-bus system. Based on the recorded data in Table 19; the SAR algorithm achieves the best total fuel cost compared with the other methods. The value of fitness function based on SAR technique is equal to 33772.3031281152 $/h. The order of algorithms based on the best fuel cost is SAR, WMFO, GWO, MFO, PSO and ChOA. The order of algorithms based on the power losses is PSO, ChOA, SAR, MFO, GWO, and WMFO. Hence the proposed SAR method has superior performance over all methods applied in this work for the OPFFF4 of IEEE 57-bus system.
Table 19.
Comparison between SAR method and other methods based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 57-bus system.
Fig. 14.
Convergence curve of SAR method based on OPFFF4 for IEEE 57-bus system.
Conclusion and future work
The OPF problem in electric power systems has been successfully solved by using the suggested SAR, as this article has demonstrated. For a quick, precise, and optimized solution to the OPF problem, the SAR has been validated. The SAR is evaluated and compared to determine the best algorithm to schedule control variables on the IEEE 30-bus, IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 57-bus standard benchmark networks in order to guarantee reduced fuel costs, power losses and an enhanced voltage deviation as a single fitness function for every case. Four objectives are tested in this work: an economic problem (i.e., reducing the total fuel costs associated with power production); an operational issue regarding the voltage deviation; a practical challenge regarding the power losses; and a practical challenge regarding the cost in addition to the voltage deviation as a multi-objective function. The suggested SAR algorithm is compared to other optimization techniques, including the gradient method, artificial bee colony, gravitational search algorithm, modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm, biogeography-based optimization, Jaya algorithm, enhanced genetic algorithm, and differential evolution algorithm, to highlight the effectiveness and potential of the SAR algorithm. The SAR approach is superior as evidenced by the obtained results for the OPF compared to all rival algorithms in every fitness function situation. The value of minimum power losses based on SAR technique is equal to 0.459733441487247 MW and 2.71286428848434 MW for IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 30-bus respectively. The value of minimum fuel cost based on SAR technique is equal to 8051.12225602148 $/h, 798.197578585806 $/h and 38017.7691758245 $/h for IEEE 14-bus, IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 57-bus system respectively. The value of minimum voltage deviation based on SAR technique is equal to 0.0357680148269292 and 0.0978069572088536 for IEEE 14-bus and IEEE 30-bus respectively. The same optimization method can be used for other purposes, such as optimal power flow with multi-objective function, the best location and size for Fixed/Switched Capacitive Banks, and the best placement and size for Distributed Renewable Energy within smart grids that use FACTS devices to minimize feeder losses and guarantee the best possible integration of renewable energy systems.
Author contributions
Essam H. Houssein: Supervising, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Alaa A. K. Ismaeel: Validation, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Mokhtar Said: Software, Investigation, Visualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. All authors read and approved the final paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Data availability
The data sets provided during the current study are available when requested from the corresponding author.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Sun, D. I., Ashley, B., Brewer, B., Hughes, A. & Tinney, W. F. Optimal power flow by Newton approach. IEEE Trans. Power App Syst.PAS-103 (10), 2864–2880 (1984). [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lee, K., Park, Y. & Ortiz, J. A united approach to optimal real and reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans. Power App Syst.104 (5), 1147–1153 (1985). [Google Scholar]
- 3.Alsaç, O., Bright, J., Prais, M. & Stott, B. Further developments in LP-based optimal power flow. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.5 (3), 697–711 (1990). [Google Scholar]
- 4.Monoh, J. A., El-Hawary, M. E. & Adapa, R. A review of selected optimal power flow literature to 1993 part II: Newton, linear programming and Interior Point methods. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.14 (1), 105–111 (1999). [Google Scholar]
- 5.Abdel-Fattah Attia, Ragab, A. & El Sehiemy, H. M. Hasanien,‘’ optimal power flow solution in power systems using a novel sine-cosine algorithm’’. Electr. Power Energy Syst.99, 331–343 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 6.Motapalomino, R. & Quintana, V. H. Sparse reactive power scheduling by a penalty function - linear programming technique. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.1 (3), 31–39 (1986). [Google Scholar]
- 7.Habibollahzadeh, H., Luo, G. X. & Semlyen, A. Hydrothermal optimal power flow based on a combined linear and nonlinear programming methodology. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.4 (2), 530–537 (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 8.Momoh, J. A. & Zhu, J. Z. Improved interior point method for opf problems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.14 (3), 1114–1120 (1999). [Google Scholar]
- 9.Burchett, R. C., Happ, H. H. & Vierath, D. R. Quadratically convergent optimal power flow. IEEE Power Eng. Rev. PER-. 4 (11), 34–35 (1984). [Google Scholar]
- 10.Costa, A. S. Jr Optimal-power-flow solution by Newton’s method applied to an augmented Lagrangian function. Generation Transmission Distribution. 142 (1), 33–36 (1995). [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bakirtzis, A. G., Biskas, P. N., Zoumas, C. E. & Petridis, V. Optimal power flow by enhanced genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.17 (2), 229–236 (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 12.Abusorrah, A. M., Attia, A. F. & Al-Turki, Y. A. Optimal power flow based on linear adapted genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on applications of electrical engineering. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS); pp. 199–203. (2010).
- 13.Attia, A. F., Al-Turki, Y. A. & Abusorrah, A. M. Optimal power flow using adapted genetic algorithm with adjusting population size. Electr. Power Compon. Syst.40 (11), 1285–1299 (2012). [Google Scholar]
- 14.Abido, M. Optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.24 (7), 563–571 (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 15.Singh, R. P., Mukherjee, V. & Ghoshal, S. P. Particle swarm optimization with an aging leader and challenger’s algorithm for the solution of optimal power flow problem. Appl. Soft Comput.40, 161–177 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zhang, J., Tang, Q., Chen, Y. & Lin, S. A hybrid particle swarm optimization with small population size to solve the optimal short-term hydro-thermal unit commitment problem. Energy. 109, 765–780 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 17.Narimani, M. R., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R., Zoghdar-Moghadam- Shahrekohne, B. & Gholami, K. A novel approach to multi-objective optimal power flow by a new hybrid optimization algorithm considering generator constraints and multi-fuel type. Energy. 49, 119–136 (2013). [Google Scholar]
- 18.Niknam, T., rasoul Narimani, M., Jabbari, M. & Malekpour, A. R. A modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow. Energy. 36 (11), 6420–6432 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 19.Roy, P. K., Ghoshal, S. P. & Thakur, S. S. Biogeography based optimization for multiconstraint optimal power flow with emission and non-smooth cost function. Expert Syst. Appl.37 (12), 8221–8228 (2010). [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ghasemi, M., Ghavidel, S., Akbari, E. & Vahed, A. A. Solving non-linear, non-smooth and non-convex optimal power flow problems using chaotic invasive weed optimization algorithms based on chaos. Energy. 73, 340–353 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bouchekar, R. E. H. H., Abido, A. M. & BOUCHERMA Optimal power flow using teaching-learning-based optimization technique. Elec Power Syst. Res.114 (3), 49–59 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ghasemi, M., Ghavidel, S., Ghanbarian, M. M., Gharibzadeh, M. & Vahed, A. A. Multiobjective optimal power flow considering the cost, emission, voltage deviation and power losses using multi-objective modified imperialist competitive algorithm. Energy. 78, 276–289 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mohamed, A. A. A., Mohamed, Y. S., El-Gaafary, A. A. M. & Hemeida, A. M. Optimal power flow using moth swarm algorithm. Elec Power Syst. Res.142, 190–206 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 24.Panda, A., Tripathy, M., Barisal, A. & Prakash, T. A modified bacteria foraging based optimal power flow framework for hydro-thermal-wind generation system in the presence of statcom. Energy. 124, 720–740 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 25.Chaib, A. E., Bouchekara, H. R. E. H., Mehasni, R. & Abido, M. A. Optimal power flow with emission and non-smooth cost functions using backtracking search optimization algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.81, 64–77 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nguyen, T. T. A high performance social spider optimization algorithm for optimal power flow solution with single objective optimization. Energy. 171, 218–240 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 27.Li, S., Gong, W., Wang, L. & Xuesong, Y. Chengyu Hu,‘’Optimal power flow by means of improved adaptive differential evolution’’. Energy. 198, 117314 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 28.Magda Foti, C. & Mavromatis Manolis Vavalis,‘’Decentralized blockchain-based consensus for Optimal Power Flow solutions’’, Applied Energy (2020).
- 29.Ragab, A., El Sehiemy, F., Selim, B., Bentouati, M. A. & Abido ‘A novel multi-objective hybrid particle swarm and salp optimization algorithm for technical-economical-environmental operation in power systems’. Energy. 193, 116817 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 30.Linfei Yin, T. & Wang Baomin Zheng,‘’Analytical adaptive distributed multi-objective optimization algorithm for optimal power flow problems’’, Energy (2020).
- 31.Hossein Saberi, T., Amraee, C. & Zhang Zhao Yang Dong,‘’A heuristic benders-decomposition-based algorithm for transient stability constrained optimal power flow’’. Electr. Power Syst. Res.185, 106380 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 32.Warid Warid,‘’ optimal power flow using the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm’’. Appl. Soft Comput. J.91, 106252 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 33.Abdollahzadeh, B., Gharehchopogh, F. S. & Mirjalili, S. African vultures optimization algorithm: a new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Comput. Ind. Eng.158, 107408 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 34.Abualigah, L., Diabat, A., Mirjalili, S., Abd Elaziz, M. & Gandomi, A. H. Arithmetic Optim. Algorithm Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.376, 113609. (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 35.Abdollahzadeh, B., Soleimanian Gharehchopogh, F. & Mirjalili, S. Artificial Gorilla troops optimizer: a new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Int. J. Intell. Syst.36, 5887–5958 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zhao, W., Wang, L. & Mirjalili, S. Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm: a New Bio-inspired optimizer with its Engineering Applications. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.388, 114194 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 37.Faramarzi, A., Heidarinejad, M., Mirjalili, S. & Gandomi, A. H. Marine predators Algorithm: a nature-inspired Metaheuristic. Expert Syst. Appl.152, 113377 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 38.Sirote Khunkitti, Apirat Siritaratiwat & Suttichai Premrudeepreechacharn. A many-objective marine predators algorithm for solving many-objective optimal power flow problem. Appl. Sci.12, 11829 (2022).
- 39.Sirote Khunkitti, Apirat Siritaratiwat, Suttichai Premrudeepreechacharn, Rongrit Chatthaworn & Neville R. Watson, A hybrid da-pso optimization algorithm for multiobjective optimal power flow problems. Energies. 11, 2270 (2018).
- 40.Sirote Khunkitti, Apirat Siritaratiwat & Suttichai Premrudeepreechacharn. Multi-objective optimal power flow problems based on slime mould algorithm. Sustainability. 13, 7448 (2021).
- 41.Sirote Khunkitti, Suttichai Premrudeepreechacharn, & Apirat Siritaratiwat, A two-archive harris hawk optimization for solving many-objective optimal power flow problems. Ieee Access, 2023.
- 42.AbdElminaam, D. S., Houssein, E. H., Said, M., Oliva, D. & Nabil, A. An efficient heap-based optimizer for parameters identification of modified photovoltaic models. Ain Shams Eng. J.13, 101728 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 43.Ismaeel, A. A. K., Houssein, E. H., Oliva, D. & Said, M. Gradient-based optimizer for parameter extraction in photovoltaic models. IEEE Access.9, 13403–13416 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 44.Abdelminaam, D. S., Said, M. & Houssein, E. H. Turbulent flow of water-based optimization using new objective function for parameter extraction of six photovoltaic models. IEEE Access.9, 35382–35398 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 45.Said, M., Houssein, E. H., Deb, S., Alhussan, A. A. & Ghoniem, R. M. A novel gradient-based optimizer for solving unit commitment problem. IEEE Access.10, 18081–18092 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 46.Said, M., Houssein, E. H., Deb, S., Ghoniem, R. M. & Elsayed, A. G. Economic load dispatch Problem based on search and rescue optimization algorithm. IEEE Access.10, 47109–47123 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 47.Said, M., El-Rifaie, A. M., Tolba, M. A., Houssein, E. H. & Deb, S. An efficient chameleon swarm algorithm for economic load dispatch Problem. Mathematics. 9, 2770 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 48.Ismaeel, A. A. K. et al. ‘‘Performance of osprey optimization algorithm for solving economic load dispatch problem.’’ Mathematics.11 (19), 4107 (2023).
- 49.Said, M., El-Rifaie, A. M., Tolba, M. A., Houssein, E. H. & Deb, S. ‘‘An efficient chameleon swarm algorithm for economic load dispatch problem.’’ Mathematics.9 (21), 2770 (2021).
- 50.Shabani, A., Asgarian, B., Salido, M. & Gharebaghi, S. A. Search and rescue optimization algorithm: a new optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Expert Syst. Appl.161, 113698 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 51.Arul, R., Ravi, G. & Velusami, S. Solving optimal power flow problems using chaotic selfadaptive differential harmony search algorithm. Electr. Power Compon. Syst.41 (8), 782–805 (2013). [Google Scholar]
- 52.Adaryani, M. R. & Karami, A. Artificial bee colony algorithm for solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.53, 219–230 (2013). [Google Scholar]
- 53.Radosavljević, J., Klimenta, D., Jevtić, M. & Arsić, N. Optimal power flow using a hybrid optimization algorithm of particle swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm. Electr. Power Compon. Syst.43, 1958–1970 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 54.Warid, W., Hizam, H., Mariun, N. & Abdul-Wahab, N. I. Optimal power flow using the Jaya algorithm. Energies. 9 (9), 678 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 55.Kumari, M. S. & Maheswarapu, S. Enhanced genetic algorithm based computation technique for multi-objective optimal power flow solution. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.32, 736–742 (2010). [Google Scholar]
- 56.Sayah, S. & Zehar, K. Modified differential evolution algorithm for optimal power flow with non-smooth cost functions. Energy Convers. Manage.49 (11), 3036–3042 (2008). [Google Scholar]
- 57.Bhattacharya, A. & Chattopadhyay, P. K. Application of biogeography-based optimization to solve different optimal power flow problems. IET Gener Transm Distrib.5 (1), 70–80 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 58.Mohammad, H., Nadimi-Shahraki, A., Fatahi, H. & Zamani Seyedali Mirjalili and Diego Oliva. Hybridizing of Whale and Moth-Flame Optimization Algorithms to Solve Diverse scales of Optimal Power Flow Problem. Electronics. 11, 831 (2022). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data sets provided during the current study are available when requested from the corresponding author.