www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 3rd May 2011
Revised on 21st January 2012
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

ISSN 1751-8687

Optimal reactive power dispatch using a gravitational

search algorithm
S. Duman1 Y. Sonmez 2 U. Guvenc3 N. Yorukeren4
1

Department of Electrical Education, Technical Education Faculty, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
Department of Electrical Technology, Gazi Vocational College, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
3
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
4
Department of Electrical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
E-mail: serhatduman@duzce.edu.tr
2

Abstract: This study presents a gravitational search algorithm (GSA) for reactive power dispatch (RPD) problem. RPD is an
optimisation problem that decreases grid congestion with one or more objective of minimising the active power loss for a
xed economic power schedule. The proposed algorithm is used to nd the settings of control variables such as generator
terminal voltages, transformer tap settings and reactive power output of the compensating devices, in order to active power
losses minimisation in the transmission system. In this study, GSA is examined and tested on the standard IEEE 30-bus,
57-bus and 118-bus test systems with different test cases such as minimisation of active power losses, improvement of
voltage prole and enhancement of voltage stability. To show the proposed algorithm of effectiveness and the obtained
results are compared with those reported in the literature. Simulation results demonstrate the superiority and accuracy of the
proposed algorithm, and considering the quality of the solution obtained, the proposed algorithm seems to be effective and
robust to solve the RPD problem.

Introduction

In the last few decades, reactive power dispatch (RPD) has

received great attention and it has become a tool for
improving economy and security of power system
operation. The RPD, which is a non-linear, non-convex and
non-differentiable optimisation problem, aims at minimising
the objective functions such as voltage stability and system
real power losses via adjustments of control parameters like
generators voltages, switchable volt-amper reactive (VAR)
sources, transformer tap settings etc. in a power system
while satisfying equality and inequality constraints [1 3].
According to the literature, mathematical algorithms such as
Newton approach, non-linear programming, interior point,
Jacobian matrix etc. have been used for RPD solutions
initially [47]. These algorithms optimise the objective
function by linearising it. Since the RPD problem has local
optima more than one, it is a non-linear and multi-modal
optimisation problem. Hence, it is so hard to nd the global
optimum using mathematical algorithms in solution of the
RPD problem. Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages
special to the algorithms such as insecure convergence and
algorithmic complexity (non-linear programming), piecewise
quadratic cost approximation (quadratic programming),
convergence characteristics (Newton approach), piecewise
linear cost approximation (linear programming), bad initial,
termination and optimality criteria (interior point) [8]. For
these reasons, researchers have developed heuristic-based
algorithms for solving the RPD problem [9].
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

In recent years, many successful researches related to the

solutions of the RPD problem using heuristic algorithms
have been conducted. Abou El Ela et al. [1] searched the
solution to the RPD problem using differential evaluation
(DE) algorithm. Wu et al. [2] proposed an adaptive genetic
algorithm (AGA) for optimal RPD and voltage control of
power systems. Zhao et al. [10] presented a solution to the
RPD problem with a novel particle swarm optimisation
approach based on multi-agent systems (MAPSO) [10].
Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay presented a solution to the
RPD problem using Biogeography-Based Optimization
(BBO). In [1, 2] and [10], proposed approaches are
examined on an IEEE 30-bus system with different
objective functions that reect fuel cost minimisation,
voltage prole improvement and voltage stability
enhancement. Yan et al. [3] proposed an improved
evolutionary programming and its hybrid version combined
with the non-linear interior point technique to solve the
RPD problem. Das and Patvardhan presented a solution to
the RPD problem with the help of hybrid stochastic search
(HSS) [11]. In [3] and [11], researchers tested their proposed
algorithm on the IEEE 118-bus system. Khorsandi et al.
used hybrid shufed frog leaping algorithm and NelderMead simplex search for optimal reactive power dispatch on
the IEEE 30, 57 and 118 bus test sytems [32]. Thukaram and
Yesuratnam proposed optimal reactive power dispatch using
FACTS controllers in a large power system [33].
Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) is a new metaheuristic search algorithm. It has been proposed by Rashedi
563

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org
et al. in 2009 and motivated by Newtonian gravitational law
and law of motion [12].
It has been reported in [13] that the GSA has a lot of
advantages and it is different from the other swarm-based
heuristic algorithms like PSO. These are expressed in detail
in [13]. These differences make the GSA more powerful.
Moreover, in [12], GSA has been examined on 23 different
standard benchmark functions and compared with other
heuristic algorithms such as PSO, rened genetic algorithm
(GA) and central force optimisation. It was found that the
results obtained by GSA in most cases provide superior
results and in all cases are comparable with others. The
most substantial feature of the GSA is that gravitational
constant adjusts the accuracy of the search, so it speeds up
the solution process [14, 15]. GSA has been veried highquality performance in solving different optimisation
problems in the literature [16 19]. Duman et al. [20]
presented a GSA to solve the economic dispatch with valve
point effects for different test systems. For all these reasons,
in this paper GSA is chosen in order to solve the RPD
problem. The RPD is determined as a non-linear
optimisation problem with equality and inequality
constraints. In order to evaluate the proposed algorithm, it
was tested on IEEE 30-bus, 57-bus and 118-bus test
systems with different objective functions that reect active
power losses, voltage prole improvement and voltage
stability enhancement, and results obtained from GSA are
compared with those reported in the literature.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 2,
objective functions and constraints of the RPD problem are
described. The proposed algorithm is expressed in Section
3. Results obtained from experimental study are illustrated
in Section 4 and a conclusion is given in Section 5.

Formulation of the RPD problem

In this paper, the objective of RPD to minimise the objective

functions which are real power losses, voltage prole
improvement and voltage stability enhancement, while
satisfying equality and inequality constraints. All objective
functions and constraints are formulated as follows.
2.1

Objective functions

2.1.1 Minimisation of real power losses: Minimisation

of the active power losses in the transmission lines can be
formulated as follows
Minimise

Fobj 1 = Ploss
=

NTL


voltages, QG is the reactive power output of the generators,

NG denes the number of voltage controlled buses, NPQ is
the number of PQ buses. The vector of control variables u
can be expressed as
uT = [VG1 VGNG , QC1 QCNC , T1 T NT ]

(3)

NT and NC are the number of tap changing transformers and

shunt VAR compensators, respectively. VG denes the
terminal voltages at the voltage controlled bus, T is the tap
ratio of the tap changing transformers and QC is the output
of shunt VAR compensators.
2.1.2 Voltage profile improvement: Minimisation of
load bus voltage deviations can allow the improvement of
voltage prole [1]. In this case, the power system operates
more securely and there will be an increase in service
quality. This objective function can be formulated as follows
Minimise

Fobj 2(i) =

|Vi V ref i |

(4)

i[NL

where NL is the number of load buses in the power system and

Vrefi is the reference value of the voltage magnitude of the ith
bus which is equal to 1.0 p.u.
2.1.3 Voltage stability enhancement: Voltage stability
is interested with the ability of a power system to maintain
constantly acceptable bus voltage at each bus in the power
system under nominal operating conditions. A system
experiences a state of voltage instability when the system is
being subjected to a disturbance, rise in load demand,
change in system conguration may lead to progressive
and uncontrollable reduce in voltage. Consequently,
enhancement of voltage stability of a system is a signicant
parameter of power system operation and planning. Voltage
stability enhancement can be done by minimising the
voltage stability indicator L-index values at every bus of the
network and consequently the global power system L-index.
L-index, which is in the interval [0 1], denes a scalar
number for each load bus and uses information on a normal
power ow [1, 8, 21]. The L-index of a bus species the
proximity of voltage collapse condition of that bus. L-index
Lj of the jth bus is dened as follows [22]


NPV


Vi 

L j = 1
Fji 

Vj 
i=1

where

j = 1, 2, . . . , NPQ

Fji = [Y1 ]1 [Y2 ]

gk [(Vi2 + Vj2 2Vi Vj cos (di dj )]

(5)
(6)

k=1

(1)
where NTL is the number of transmission lines, gk is the
conductance of the ith line, Vi and Vj are the voltage
magnitude of the ith and jth buses, and di and dj are the
voltage phase angles of the ith and jth buses. x and u are
vectors of dependent and control variables, respectively.
The vector of dependent variables x can be expressed as
xT = [PG1 , VL1 VLNPQ , QG1 QGNG ]

(2)

where PG1 species the slack bus power, VL is the PQ bus

564
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

where NPV is the number of PV bus and NPQ is the number

of load bus. Y1 and Y2 are the sub-matrices of the system
YBUS obtained after separating the PQ and PV bus bar
parameters as described in the following equation.


IPQ
IPV


=

Y1
Y3

Y2
Y4



VPQ
VPV


(7)

L-index is computed for all the PQ buses. Lj represents no

load case and voltage collapse conditions of bus j in the
range of 0 and 1, respectively. Hence, a global system
indicator L describing the stability of the complete system
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org
is given as follows.
L = max (Lj ),

where j = 1, 2, . . . , NPQ

(8)

A lower value of L represents a more stable system. In the

RPD problem, inaccurate tuning of control variable settings
may increase the value of L-index, that is, may decrease the
voltage stability margin of the system [21]. In order to
improve the voltage stability and to move the system far
from the voltage collapse point, the following objective
function can be dened.
Minimise

Fobj 3 = Lmax

(9)

Voltage of each load bus ought to be restricted by their lower

and upper operating limits. Line ow through each
transmission line ought to be restricted by their capacity limits.
VLimin VLi VLimax ,
Slimin Slimax ,

i = 1, . . . , NL

Minimise

J mod = Fobj + lV
+ lQ

In this work, during the solution process, the objective

functions are subjected to equality and inequality constraints
as below:
2.2.1 Equality constraints: These constraints, which are
load ow equations, are described as follows
NB


(VLi VLilim )2

NG


2
(QGi Qlim
Gi )

(18)

where Fobj is described as objective functions such as Fobj1,

Fobj2(i), Fobj2(ii), Fobj3 . lV and lQ are dened as penalty
factors. VLilim and Qlim
Gi are the limit values of the dependent
variables given as


Vj [Gij cos(di dj ) + Bij sin(di dj )] = 0

VLilim

(10)
QGi QDi Vi

NPQ


i=1

j=1

NB


(17)

i=1

Constraints

PGi PDi Vi

(16)

Fitness function is directly called from the objective function.

Load bus voltages VL and reactive power generations QG are
dependent variables, which are restricted by adding them as
the quadratic penalty terms to the objective function to form
a generalised objective function as

where Lmax is the maximum value of L-index.

2.2

i = 1, . . . , NPQ


Qlim
Gi

Vj [Gij sin(di dj ) Bij cos(di dj )] = 0

VLimax ;
VLimin ;

VLi . VLimax
VLi , VLimin

(19)

Qmax
Gi ;
Qmin
Gi ;

QGi . Qmax
Gi
QGi , Qmin
Gi

(20)

j=1

(11)
where NB is the number of buses, PGi and QGi are generated
active and reactive power, PDi and QDi are load active and
reactive power, Gij is the transfer conductance and Bij is the
transfer susceptance between ith bus and jth bus, respectively.
2.2.2 Inequality constraints:
1. Generator constraints: Generator voltages, reactive
outputs ought to be restricted by their lower and upper
limits as follows
min
max
VGi
VGi VGi
,

i = 1, . . . , NG

(12)

max
Qmin
Gi QGi QGi ,

i = 1, . . . , NG

(13)

2. Transformer constraints: Transformer tap settings ought

to be restricted by their lower and upper limits as follows
Timin Ti Timax ,

i = 1, . . . , NT

(14)

3. Shunt VAR compensator constraints: Shunt VAR

compensators ought to be restricted by their lower and
upper limits as follows
max
Qmin
ci Qci Qci ,

i = 1, . . . , NC

(15)

4. Security constraints: These contain the constraints of voltage

magnitudes at load buses and transmission line loadings.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

Gravitational search algorithm

Rashedi et al. proposed a new meta-heuristic searching

algorithm called GSA in 2009. This algorithm is introduced
based on Newtons law of gravity and law of motion. The
law of gravity states that every particle attracts every other
particle and the gravitational force between two particles is
directly proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
them. According to the proposed algorithm, agents are
assumed to be objects, the performances of which are
measured by means of masses [12]. Hence, all these objects
attract each other by a gravity force, and this force causes a
global movement of all objects towards the objects with
heavier masses. Since the heavier masses have higher
tness values; they describe good optimal solution to the
problem and they move more slowly than lighter ones
representing worse solutions. In GSA, each mass has four
particulars: its position, its inertial mass, its active
gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass. The
position of the mass equalled to a solution of the problem
and its gravitational and inertial masses are specied by
using a tness function. In other words, each mass performs
a solution and the algorithm is navigated by appropriately
adjusting the gravitational and inertia masses [12, 14, 15].
It is assumed that given a system with N agents, the
position of the ith agent in search space represents a
solution to the problem. Agent is described as follows
Xi = (x1i , . . . , xdi , . . . , xni ),

for i = 1, 2, . . . , N

(21)

where n is the space dimension of the problem and xdi

describes the position of the ith agent in the dth dimension.
565

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org
Initially, the agents of the solution are described randomly
and according to Newton gravitation theory, a gravitational
force from mass j acts mass i at the time t is specied as
follows
Mpi (t) Maj (t) d
Fijd (t) = G(t)
(xj (t) xdi (t))
Rij (t) + 1

(22)

where Mpi is the passive gravitational mass of the agent i, Maj

is the active gravitational mass of the agent j, G(t) is the
gravitational constant at time t, e is a small constant and
Rij (t) is the Euclidian distance between i and j agents
dened as follows
Rij (t) = Xi (t), Xj (t)2

(23)

The total force acting on agent i in a dimension d is a

randomly weighted sum of the forces exerted from other
agents
Fid (t) =

m


randj Fijd (t)

(24)

represents. It is notable that, as Newtons law of gravity and

law of motion refer, a heavy mass has a higher pull on
power and moves slower. The masses are updated as follows
Mai = Mpi = Mii = Mi ,
mi (t) =

i = 1, 2, . . . , N

fiti (t) worst(t)

best(t) worst(t)

m (t)
Mi (t) = N i
j=1 mj (t)

(30)
(31)
(32)

where ti (t) represents the tness value of the agent i at time t,

and the best(t) and worst(t) in the population, respectively,
specify the strongest and the weakest agent with regard to
their tness route. For a minimisation problem
best(t) =

min

j[{1,...,m}

worst(t) =

max

j[{1,...,m}

fitj (t)
fitj (t)

(33)
(34)

For a maximisation problem

j=i j=i

where randj is a random number in the interval [0, 1].

In order to nd the acceleration of the ith agent, at t time in
the dth dimension on law of motion is used directly to
calculate. In accordance with this law, it is proportional to
the force acting on that agent, and inversely proportional to
the mass of the agent. adi (t) is given as follows
adi (t) =

Fid (t)
Mii (t)

(25)

best(t) =

max

j[{1,...,m}

worst(t) =

min

j[{1,...,m}

fitj (t)
fitj (t)

(35)
(36)

In order to solve optimisation problem with GSA, at the

beginning of the algorithm every agent is placed at a certain
point of the search space that species a solution to the
problem at every unit of time. Then according to (26) and
(27), the agents are evaluated and their next positions are

Moreover, the searching strategy can be dened to nd the

next velocity and next position of an agent. Next velocity
of an agent is dened as a function of its current velocity
added to its current acceleration. Also the next position
function is the sum of the current position and next velocity
of that agent. The next position and next velocity of an
agent can be dened as follows
vdi (t + 1) = randi vdi (t) + adi (t)

(26)

xdi (t + 1) = xdi (t) + vdi (t + 1)

(27)

where vdi (t) and xdi (t) are the velocity and position of an agent
at t time in d dimension, respectively. randi is a random
number in the interval [0, 1]. It gives a randomised feature
to the search.
The gravitational constant, G, which is initialised randomly
at the starting, will decrease according to time to control the
search accuracy.
In this, G is a function of the initial value (G0) and time (t):
G(t) = G(G0 , t)

(28)

G(t) = G0 ea(t/T )

(29)

a is a user-specied constant, t is the current iteration and T is

the total number of iterations.
The masses of the agents are calculated using tness
evaluation. The heavier mass of an agent, the more
inuential is that agent, concerning the solution it
566
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the GSA [12]

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org
computed. Other parameters of the algorithm such as the
gravitational constant G, masses M and acceleration a are
computed via (28), (29), (31), (32) and (25), respectively,
and are updated at every cycle of time. The ow diagram of
the GSA is shown in Fig. 1 [12, 23].
3.1

Application of GSA for optimal RPD problem

In this section of the paper, a new heuristic method to perform

the GSA algorithm will be explained for solving the optimal
RPD problems. Especially, a proposal will be about how to
deal with the equality and inequality constraints of the
optimal RPD problems by adapting each agents search
point in the GSA algorithm. The process of GSA algorithm
can be demonstrated as follows.
Step 1: Initialisation
Determine the lower and upper bounds of independent
variables, which contain generator voltages, transformer tap
settings and shunt VAR compensations. When it is assumed
that there is a system with N (dimension of the search
space) masses, position of the ith mass (control variable) is
described in a feasible numerical range as follows.
Xi = XiL + rand (XiU XiL )

(37)

where rand is a uniformly distributed random number

between 0 and 1.
Step 2: Fitness evaluation of all agents
After controlling lower and upper bounds of each control
variable, the tness function value is calculated according
to (18).
If output of the ith control variable Ui . Uimax
Ui = Uimax

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

Table 1

Best control variables settings for different test cases

Control variables
settings

Case 1: minimisation of real

power loss

Case 2 (i): improvement

voltage profile

Case 2 (ii): improvement

voltage profile

Case 3: voltage stability

enhancement

V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29
power loss, MW
voltage deviations
Lmax

1.071652
1.022199
1.040094
1.050721
0.977122
0.967650
1.098450
0.982481
1.095909
1.059339
1.653790
4.372261
0.119957
2.087617
0.357729
0.260254
0.000000
1.383953
0.000317
4.514310
0.875220
0.141090

0.983850
1.044807
1.020353
0.999126
1.077000
1.043932
0.900000
1.100000
1.050599
0.961999
0.000000
0.473512
5.000000
0.000000
5.000000
0.000000
4.999834
5.000000
5.000000
6.911765
0.067633
0.134937

1.071327
1.041902
1.038594
1.039284
1.079677
1.021998
0.953713
1.100000
1.025722
0.993039
0.000000
0.000000
4.386946
3.315407
3.455402
0.000000
2.447668
5.000000
1.825572
4.975298
0.215793
0.136844

1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
0.900000
0.900000
0.900000
1.019538
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
6.660258
0.900000
0.116070

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

567

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 3 Convergence of GSA for case 1

If output of the ith control variable Ui . Uimin

Ui = Uimin
If output of ith control variable, Ui , is within its maximum
and minimum operation limits
Ui = Ui
Step 3: Determination of gravitational constant, best and
worst tnesses
For all agents, best and worst tnesses are determined at
each iteration described as in (33) and (34). The
gravitational constant at t time is determined according to in
(28) and (29). Gravitational constant adjusts the accuracy of
the search and gravitational constant reduces in time.
Table 2

Step 4: Update the gravitational and inertial masses

In this step, the gravitational and inertial masses are
updated as in (30) (32).
Step 5: Calculate the total force
At the specic t time, the gravitational force and total force
are described according to (22) and (24).
Step 6: Calculate the acceleration and update velocity
In this step, the acceleration (adi (t)) and updating velocity
d
(vi (t + 1)) of the ith agent at t time in dth dimension are
calculated in (25) and (26).
Step 7: Update the position of the agents
In this step, the next position of the ith agents in dth
(Xid (t = 1)) dimension is updated according to (27).
Step 8: Repeat
In this stage, steps 2 7 are repeated until the maximum
iteration is reached at the stopping criteria. In the nal

Comparison of the simulation results for case 1

Control variables settings

V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29
power loss, MW
voltage deviations
Lmax
CPU time, s

GSA

BBO [24]

DE [1]

CLPSO [25]

PSO [25]

SARGA [26]

1.071652
1.022199
1.040094
1.050721
0.977122
0.967650
1.098450
0.982481
1.095909
1.059339
1.653790
4.372261
0.119957
2.087617
0.357729
0.260254
0.000000
1.383953
0.000317
4.514310
0.875220
0.141090
94.6938

1.1000
1.0944
1.0749
1.0768
1.0999
1.0999
1.0435
0.90117
0.98244
0.96918
4.9998
4.987
4.9906
4.997
4.9901
4.9946
3.8753
4.9867
2.9098
4.5511

1.1000
1.0931
1.0736
1.0756
1.1000
1.1000
1.0465
0.9097
0.9867
0.9689
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.4060
5.0000
2.8004
5.0000
2.5979
4.5550
1.9589
0.5513

1.1000
1.1000
1.0795
1.1000
1.1000
1.1000
0.9154
0.9000
0.9000
0.9397
4.9265
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.5615
0.4773
0.1230
138

1.1000
1.1000
1.0867
1.1000
1.1000
1.1000
0.9587
1.0543
1.0024
0.9755
4.2803
5.0000
3.0288
4.0365
2.6697
3.8894
0.0000
3.5879
2.8415
4.6282
1.0883
0.1423
130

4.57401

568

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 4 Convergence of GSA for case 2 (i)

The proposed GSA was performed to solve the RPD

problems. GSA approach based on the Newtonian physical
law of gravity and law of motion is tested on the standard
IEEE 30-bus test system shown in Fig. 2. The line data, bus
data, generator data and the minimum and maximum limits
for the control variables are given in the Appendix. The test
system has 19 control variables that are six generator

voltage magnitudes at the buses 1, 2, 5, 8, 11 and 13, and

four transformers with off-nominal tap ratio at lines 6 9,
6 10, 4 12, and 28 27. In addition, buses 10, 12, 15, 17,
20, 21, 23, 24 and 29 are selected as shunt VAR
compensation buses. The total system demand is 2.834 p.u.
at 100 MVA base. The proposed approach is applied to
solve the RPD problem for different cases with various
objective functions. In this study, 30 test runs were
performed to solve the RPD problem which is simulated
for different objective functions with different parameters
such as G0 , a and maximum iteration. At the end of the
simulation process, G is set using (28) and (29), where the
most appropriate values of G0 is set to 100 and a is set to
10, and T is the total number of iterations. Maximum
iteration numbers are 200, 500 for case 1 and other case

Table 3

Table 4

iteration, the algorithm returns the value of positions of the

corresponding agent at specied dimensions. This value is
the best solution of the optimisation problem.

4
4.1

Numerical results
IEEE 30-bus power system

Comparison of the simulation results for case 2 (i)

Control variables settings

V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29
power loss, MW
voltage deviations
Lmax
CPU time, s

Comparison of the simulation results for case 2 (ii)

GSA

DE [1]

Control variables settings

0.983850
1.044807
1.020353
0.999126
1.077000
1.043932
0.900000
1.100000
1.050599
0.961999
0.000000
0.473512
5.000000
0.000000
5.000000
0.000000
4.999834
5.000000
5.000000
6.911765
0.067633
0.134937
198.6532

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

V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29
power loss, MW
voltage deviations
Lmax
CPU time, s

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

GSA

CLPSO [25]

PSO [25]

1.071327
1.041902
1.038594
1.039284
1.079677
1.021998
0.953713
1.100000
1.025722
0.993039
0.000000
0.000000
4.386946
3.315407
3.455402
0.000000
2.447668
5.000000
1.825572
4.975298
0.215793
0.136844
214.6823

1.1000
1.1000
1.0724
1.0764
1.0452
1.1000
1.0177
0.9738
1.0244
0.9896
0.7220
1.6812
2.6462
3.4105
1.9773
0.4767
3.5896
2.9998
1.1098
4.6969
0.2450
0.1247
138

1.0508
1.0359
1.0281
1.0438
1.0306
1.0539
1.0020
0.9003
0.9825
0.9958
5.0000
4.4032
3.5695
4.2684
4.3108
4.8788
3.0720
3.8790
5.0000
4.7075
0.2577
0.1273
130

569

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org
Table 5

Comparison of the simulation results for case 3

Control variables settings

V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29
power loss, MW
voltage deviations
Lmax
CPU time, s

GSA

DE [1]

1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
1.100000
0.900000
0.900000
0.900000
1.019538
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
5.000000
6.660258
0.900000
0.116070
225.2694

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

studies, respectively. The software was written in MATLAB

2008a computing environment and applied on a 2.63 GHz
Pentium IV personal computer with 3 GB RAM. In the
following, the simulation results are presented:
4.1.1 Case 1: Minimisation of system real power
loss: The proposed approach is applied for minimisation of
active power losses as the objective function. The obtained
optimal values of control variables from the proposed GSA
method are given in Table 1. Bold words are used to
indicate the proposed algorithm and their better
performance. The obtained minimum real power loss from
the proposed approach is 4.5143 MW. GSA is less than
0.80859 and 0.89352% compared to above-mentioned best
results 4.5511 and 4.5550 MW, respectively. Fig. 3 shows
the convergence characteristic of GSA for minimum loss
solution. The convergence characteristic of the proposed

method; the algorithm nds the optimal solution depending

on setting parameters (population size, G0 , a etc.) after
about 17th iteration. The results obtained from the proposed
GSA method were compared with the other methods in the
literature. The results of this comparison are given in
Table 2. The computational time of each algorithm is
shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the computing time of
GSA is less than the other evolutionary algorithms.
4.1.2 Case 2: Improvement of voltage profile: In case
2, the proposed GSA approach is applied for improvement of
voltage prole in two different objective functions. First, the
proposed approach is applied to minimise (4), and second, it
is applied to minimise the following equation
Fobj 2(ii) = Ploss + c1

min

|Vi V ref i |

(38)

i[NL

where c1 is a suitable weighting factor to be selected by the

user. The value of c1 in this case is chosen as 0.01 [25].
The results obtained from the proposed GSA method for
optimal settings of the control variables in (2) are given in
the third column of Table 1. In this case 2 (i), the voltage
Table 6

Limits of generation reactive power

Bus

12

QGmax
QGmin

1.5
20.2

0.5
20.17

0.6
20.1

0.25
20.08

2.0
21.4

0.09
20.03

1.55
21.5

Table 7

Limits of the bus voltages and tap settings

VGmax

VGmin

max
VP0

min
VP0

Tkmax

Tkmin

1.06

0.94

1.06

0.94

1.1

0.9

Table 8

Limits of reactive power sources

Bus

18

25

53

QCmax
QCmin

0.1
0.0

0.059
0.0

0.063
0.0

Fig. 5 Convergence of GSA for case 3

570

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org
Table 9

Comparison of the simulation results for an IEEE 57-bus test system

Control variables settings

GSA

NLP [28]

CGA [28]

V1
V2
V3
V6
V8
V9
V12
T4218
T4218
T21220
T24226
T7229
T34232
T11241
T15245
T14246
T10251
T13249
T11243
T40256
T39257
T9 55
QC18
QC25
QC53
power loss, p.u.
CPU time, s

1.060000
1.060000
1.060000
1.008102
1.054955
1.009801
1.018591
1.100000
1.082634
0.921987
1.016731
0.996262
1.100000
1.074625
0.954340
0.937722
1.016790
1.052572
1.100000
0.979992
1.024653
1.037316
0.078254
0.005869
0.046872
0.23461194
321.4872

Control variables
settings

SPSO-07 [28]

L-DE [28]

L-SACP-DE [28]

V1
V2
V3
V6
V8
V9
V12
T4 18
T4 18
T21 20
T24 26
T7 29
T34 32
T11 41
T15 45
T14 46
T10 51
T13 49
T11 43
T40 56
T39 57
T9 55
QC18
QC25
QC53
power loss, p.u.
CPU time, s

1.0596
1.0580
1.0488
1.0362
1.06
1.0433
1.0356
0.95
0.99
0.99
1.02
0.97
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.95
0.97
0.92
1
1
0.95
0.98
0.03936
0.05664
0.03552
0.2443043
121.98

1.0397
1.0463
1.0511
1.0236
1.0538
0.94518
0.99078
1.02
0.91
0.97
0.91
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.96
1.05
1.07
0.99
1.06
0.99
0.97
1.07
0
0
0
0.2781264
426.97

0.9884
1.0543
1.0278
0.9672
1.0552
1.0245
1.0098
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.98
0.97
1.09
0.92
0.91
1.08
0.99
0.91
0.94
0.99
0.96
1.1
0
0
0
0.2791553
427.23

1.06
1.06
1.0538
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
0.91
1.06
0.93
1.08
1
1.09
0.92
0.91
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.08
1.03
0.08352
0.00864
0.01104
0.2590231

0.9686
1.0493
1.0567
0.9877
1.0223
0.9918
1.0044
0.92
0.92
0.97
0.9
0.91
1.1
0.94
0.95
1.03
1.09
0.9
0.9
1
0.96
1
0.084
0.00816
0.05376
0.2524411
353.08

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

AGA [28]

PSO-cf [28]

CLPSO [28]

1.0276
1.06
1.06
1.0117
1.0578
1.0586
1.0335
1.04378
1.0464
1.0010
1.0356
1.0415
1.0517
1.0546
1.06
1.0518
1.0369
1.0423
1.0570
1.0334
1.0371
1.03
0.9
0.98
1.02
1.02
0.98
1.06
1.01
1.01
0.99
1.01
1.01
1.1
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
1.01
0.9
0.9
1.08
0.97
0.97
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.05
0.92
0.93
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.01
1
0.99
0.94
0.96
0.96
1
0.97
0.98
0.0168
0.05136
0.09984
0.01536
0.05904
0.05904
0.03888
0.06288
0.06288
0.2456484
0.2427052
0.2428022
367.31
406.42
404.63

1.0541
1.0529
1.0337
1.0313
1.0496
1.0302
1.0342
0.99
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.99
0.93
0.91
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.95
1
0.96
0.97
0.09888
0.05424
0.06288
0.2451520
423.30

L-SaDE [28]

PSO-w [28]

SOA [28]

1.0600
1.06
1.0574
1.0580
1.0438
1.0437
1.0364
1.0352
1.0537
1.0548
1.0366
1.0369
1.0323
1.0336
0.94
1
1
0.96
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.9
0.9
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.96
1
1
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.08112
0.09984
0.05808
0.05904
0.06192
0.06288
0.2426739
0.2426548
408.97
382.23

BBO [24]

BBO (after relaxing

Q-limit of bus 2
and 9) [24]

1.0600
1.0504
1.0440
1.0376
1.0550
1.0229
1.0323
0.96693
0.99022
1.0120
1.0087
0.97074
0.96869
0.90082
0.96602
0.95079
0.96414
0.92462
0.95022
0.99666
0.96289
0.96001
0.09782
0.058991
0.6289
0.24544

1.0600
1.0580
1.0442
1.0364
1.0567
1.0377
1.0351
0.99165
0.96447
1.0122
1.0110
0.97127
0.97227
0.90095
0.97063
0.95153
0.96252
0.92227
0.95988
1.0018
0.96567
0.97199
0.09640
0.05897
0.062948
0.242616

571

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 6 Convergence of GSA for an IEEE 57-bus test system

deviations are decreased from 0.0911 to 0.067633 with a

reduction of 25.7596%. The convergence characteristic of
the proposed approach for this case 2 (i) is shown in Fig. 4.
According to the results in Table 3, the voltage deviation is
0.067633, which is less than the reported best result in the
literature. The results for optimal settings of the control
variables for case 2 (ii) are given in the fourth column of
Table 1, which show that the GSA has the best solution for
voltage deviations in the RPD problem. In case 2 (ii), the
voltage deviations have been improved from 0.2577, 0.2450
to 0.215793 with a reduction of 16.261932 and
11.921224%, respectively. The best results obtained from
the GSA technique are compared with the other techniques
in Table 4. The computational time of each algorithm is
shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. In Table 4, the
computing time of GSA is more than the other evolutionary
algorithms because of its less number of iterations.
4.1.3 Case 3: Enhancement of voltage stability: In
this case, the proposed GSA approach is applied for
enhancement of voltage stability. The results obtained from
the proposed GSA method for optimal settings of the
control variables are given in the fth column of Table 1.
The simulation results obtained from the proposed GSA
technique are compared with the other heuristic techniques
in the literature. The results of this comparison are shown
in Table 5. In Table 5, it appears that the Lmax obtained
from the GSA approach is 0.116070, which is less than
6.8459% compared to the above-mentioned optimisation
algorithm. The convergence characteristic of the proposed
approach for this case 3 is shown in Fig. 5. The
computational time of the GSA method is shown in Table 5.
4.2

IEEE 57-bus power system

The standard IEEE 57-bus system consists of 80 transmission

lines, seven generators at 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 15 branches
under load tap setting transformer branches. The reactive
power sources are considered at buses 18, 25 and 53. The
system line data, bus data, variable limits and the initial
values of the control variables were given in [27, 28]. The
search space of this case system has 25 dimensions,
including 7 generator voltages, 15 transformer taps and 3
572

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

reactive power sources. The upper and lower limits of

generation reactive power and control variables limits of
test system are given in Table 6 8, respectively.
The system loads are given as follows
Pload = 12.508 p.u., Qload = 3.364 p.u.
The initial total generations and power losses are as follows


PG = 12.7926 p.u.,

Ploss = 0.28462 p.u.,

QG = 3.4545 p.u.

Qloss = 1.2427 p.u.

There are ve bus voltages outside the limits in the network

V25 = 0.938,

V30 = 0.920,

V32 = 0.926,

V31 = 0.900,

V33 = 0.924

For all heuristic methods in the literature, population size is

60. The population size of the SPSO-2007 is automatically
computed by the algorithm, the number of iterations of
algorithms has been made as 300. Population size of the
proposed approach is selected as 90 and the number of
maximum iteration is specied as 150. Active power loss
and the control variable settings obtained from the GSA
were compared with other methods in the literature. The
results of this comparison are given in Table 9.
Table 10 Limits of reactive power sources
bus
QCmax
QCmin
bus
QCmax
QCmin

5
0
240
74
12
0

34
14
0
79
20
0

37
0
225
82
20
0

44
10
0
83
10
0

45
10
0
105
20
0

46
10
0
107
6
0

48
15
0
110
6
0

Table 11 Limits of the bus voltages and tap-settings

VGmax

VGmin

max
VPQ

min
VPQ

Tkmax

Tkmin

1.1

0.95

1.05

0.95

1.1

0.9

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org
Table 12 Comparison of the simulation results for an IEEE
118-bus test system

Table 12 Continued
Control variables settings

Control variables settings

V1
V4
V6
V8
V10
V12
V15
V18
V19
V24
V25
V26
V27
V31
V32
V34
V36
V40
V42
V46
V49
V54
V55
V56
V59
V61
V62
V65
V66
V69
V70
V72
V73
V74
V76
V77
V80
V85
V87
V89
V90
V91
V92
V99
V100
V103
V104
V105
V107
V110
V111
V112
V113
V116
T8
T32
T36
T51
T93
T95

GSA
0.9600
0.9620
0.9729
1.0570
1.0885
0.9630
1.0127
1.0069
1.0003
1.0105
1.0102
1.0401
0.9809
0.9500
0.9552
0.9910
1.0091
0.9505
0.9500
0.9814
1.0444
1.0379
0.9907
1.0333
1.0099
1.0925
1.0393
0.9998
1.0355
1.1000
1.0992
1.0014
1.0111
1.0476
1.0211
1.0187
1.0462
1.0491
1.0426
1.0955
1.0417
1.0032
1.0927
1.0433
1.0786
1.0266
0.9808
1.0163
0.9987
1.0218
0.9852
0.9500
0.9764
1.0372
1.0659
0.9534
0.9328
1.0884
1.0579
0.9493

GSA

PSO [25] CLPSO [25]

PSO [25] CLPSO [25]

1.0853
1.0420
1.0805
0.9683
1.0756
1.0225
1.0786
1.0498
1.0776
1.0827
0.9564
1.0809
1.0874
0.9608
1.1000
0.9611
1.0367
1.0914
0.9701
1.0390
1.0836
0.9764
1.0103
0.9536
0.9672
1.0938
1.0978
1.0892
1.0861
0.9665
1.0783
0.9506
0.9722
0.9713
0.9602
1.0781
1.0788
0.9568
0.9642
0.9748
1.0248
0.9615
0.9568
0.9540
0.9584
1.0162
1.0992
0.9694
0.9656
1.0873
1.0375
1.0920
1.0753
0.9594
1.0112
1.0906
1.0033
1.0000
1.0080
1.0326

1.0332
1.0550
0.9754
0.9669
0.9811
1.0092
0.9787
1.0799
1.0805
1.0286
1.0307
0.9877
1.0157
0.9615
0.9851
1.0157
1.0849
0.9830
1.0516
0.9754
0.9838
0.9637
0.9716
1.0250
1.0003
1.0771
1.0480
0.9684
0.9648
0.9574
0.9765
1.0243
0.9651
1.0733
1.0302
1.0275
0.9857
0.9836
1.0882
0.9895
0.9905
1.0288
0.9760
1.0880
0.9617
0.9611
1.0125
1.0684
0.9769
1.0414
0.9790
0.9764
0.9721
1.0330
1.0045
1.0609
1.0008
1.0093
0.9922
1.0074
Continued

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

T102
T107
T127
QC5
QC34
QC37
QC44
QC45
QC46
QC48
QC74
QC79
QC82
QC83
QC105
QC107
QC110
power loss, MW [25]
CPU time, s [25]

0.9975
0.9887
0.9801
0.00
7.46
0.00
6.07
3.33
6.51
4.47
9.72
14.25
17.49
4.28
12.04
2.26
2.94
127.7603
1198.6583

0.9443
0.9067
0.9673
0.0000
9.3639
0.0000
9.3078
8.6428
8.9462
11.8092
4.6132
10.5923
16.4544
9.6325
8.9513
5.0426
5.5319
131.99
1215

1.0611
0.9307
0.9578
0.0000
11.7135
0.0000
9.8932
9.4169
2.6719
2.8546
0.5471
14.8532
19.4270
6.9824
9.0291
4.9926
2.2086
130.96
1472

Fig. 6 shows the convergence characteristic of GSA for

minimum active power loss solution. In Fig. 6, it is quite
obvious that the target approach reaches the optimal solution
in search space according to the setting parameters of
algorithm (e.g. population size, G0 , a etc.) after the tenth
iteration. The minimum active power loss obtained from
GSA is 0.23461194 p.u. GSA is less by 3.31452%
compared to the earlier-mentioned best result 0.2426548 p.u.
The computational time of each algorithm is shown in
Table 9. In Table 9, it can be seen that the computing time
of GSA is less than other heuristic algorithms except for
SPSO-07.
4.3

IEEE 118-bus power system

To test the proposed technique in solving larger power

systems, a standard IEEE 118-bus test system is considered.
The search space of this case system has 77 dimensions,
that is, the 54 generator buses, 64 load buses, 186
transmission lines, 9 transformer taps and 14 reactive power
sources. The system line data, bus data, variable limits and
the initial values of control variables were given in [25, 29].
The maximum and minimum limits of reactive power
sources, voltage and tap-setting limits are given in
Tables 10 and 11, respectively [25].
The system loads are given as follows
Pload = 42.4200 p.u.,

Qload = 14.3800 p.u.

The initial total generations and power losses are as follows



PG = 43.7536 p.u.,

Ploss = 1.33357 p.u.,

QG = 8.8192 p.u.

Qloss = 7.8511 p.u.

The results obtained from the proposed GSA method were

compared with the other methods in the literature. The
results of this comparison are given in Table 12. The
convergence characteristic of the proposed approach for this
test system is shown in Fig. 7. According to results in

573

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 7 Convergence of GSA for an IEEE 118-bus test system

Table 12, it can be seen that the active power loss is

127.7603 MW, which is less than the reported best result in
the literature. The computational time of each algorithm is
shown in Table 12. From Table 12, it can be seen that the
computing time of GSA is less than the other evolutionary
algorithms.

Conclusions

In this paper, one of the recently improved heuristic

algorithms was demonstrated and successfully applied to
solve RPD. The RPD problem was formulated as a nonlinear optimisation problem with equality and inequality
constraints in power systems. In this study, different
objective functions were considered to enhance the voltage
prole and the voltage stability and minimise the active
power losses. The proposed GSA approach was tested and
investigated on the IEEE 30-bus, 57-bus and 118-bus test
systems to demonstrate its effectiveness. This approach was
successfully and inuentially performed to nd the optimal
settings of the control variables of the test system. The
simulation results indicated the robustness and superiority
of the proposed approach to solve the RPD problem. The
results obtained from the GSA technique give better-quality
solution in comparison with the best results previously
reported in the literature. The comparison veries the
inuentially of the proposed GSA approach over the
stochastic techniques in terms of solution quality for the
RPD problem.

References

1 Abou El Ela, A.A., Abido, M.A., Spea, S.R.: Differential evolution

algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2011, 81, pp. 458 464
2 Wu, Q.H., Cao, Y.J., Wen, J.Y.: Optimal reactive power dispatch using
an adaptive genetic algorithm, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 1998,
20, (8), pp. 563569
3 Yan, W., Lu, S., Yu, D.C.: A novel optimal reactive power dispatch
method based on an improved hybrid evolutionary programming
technique, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, (2), pp. 913918
4 Lee, K.Y., Park, Y.M., Ortiz, J.L.: Fuel-cost minimisation for both realand reactive-power dispatches, Proc. Generation, Transmission and
Distribution Conf., 1984, 131, (3), pp. 8593
574
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

5 Granville, S.: Optimal reactive dispatch through interior point

methods, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1994, 9, (1), pp. 136 146
6 Deeb, N.I., Shahidehpour, S.M.: An efcient technique for reactive
power dispatch using a revised linear programming approach, Electr.
Power Syst. Res., 1988, 15, pp. 121 134
7 Grudinin, N.: Reactive power optimization using successive quadratic
programming method, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1998, 13, (4),
pp. 1219 1225
8 Abido, M.A.: Optimal power ow using particle swarm optimization,
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2002, 24, pp. 563571
9 Abou El Ela, A.A., Abido, M.A., Spea, S.R.: Optimal power ow using
differential evolution algorithm, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2010, 80,
pp. 878885
10 Zhao, B., Guo, C.X., Cao, Y.J.: A multiagent-based particle swarm
optimization approach for optimal reactive power dispatch, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20, (2), pp. 10701078
11 Das, D.B., Patvardhan, C.: Reactive power dispatch with a hybrid
stochastic search technique, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2002,
24, pp. 731 736
12 Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., Saryazdi, S.: GSA: a gravitational
search algorithm, Inf. Sci., 2009, 179, pp. 2232 2248
13 Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., Saryazdi, S.: Filter modeling using
gravitational search algorithm, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 2011, 24,
pp. 117122
14 Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-Pour, H., Saryazdi, S.: BGSA: binary
gravitational search algorithm, Nat. Comput., 2010, 9, pp. 727745
15 Ceylan, O., Ozdemir, A., Dag, H.: Gravitational search algorithm for postoutage bus voltage magnitude calculations. International Universities
Power Engineering Conf., Wales, UK, 31 August3 September 2010
16 Li, C., Zhou, J.: Parameters identication of hydraulic turbine
governing system using improved gravitational search algorithm,
Energy Convers. Manage., 2011, 52, pp. 374 381
17 Zibanezhad, B., Zamanifar, K., Nematbakhsh, N., Mardukhi, F.: An
approach for web services composition based on QoS and
gravitational search algorithm. Proc. Innovations in Information
Technology Conf., 2010, pp. 340344
18 Hassanzadeh, H.R., Rouhani, M.: A multi-objective gravitational
search algorithm. Proc. Communication Systems and Network Conf.,
2010, pp. 7 12
19 Balachandar, S.R., Kannan, K.: A meta-heuristic algorithm for set
covering problem based on gravity, Int. J. Comput. Math. Sci., 2010,
4, pp. 223 228
20 Duman, S., Guvenc, U., Yorukeren, N.: Gravitational search algorithm
for economic dispatch with valve-point effects, Int. Rev. Electr. Eng.
(IREE), 2010, 5, (6), pp. 2890 2895
21 Bhattacharya, A., Chattopadhyay, P.K.: Application of biogeographybased optimisation to solve different optimal power ow problems,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, 5, (1), pp. 70 80
22 Kessel, P., Glavitsch, H.: Estimating the voltage stability of a power
system, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1986, PWRD-1, (3), pp. 346 354
23 Abarghouei, A.A.: A novel solution to traveling salesman problem
using fuzzy sets, gravitational search algorithm, and genetic
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

www.ietdl.org
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

33

algorithm. MSc thesis, Malaysia Technology University, Faculty of

Computer Science and Information Systems, April 2010, pp. 5257
Bhattacharya, A., Chattopadhyay, P.K.: Solution of optimal reactive
power ow using biogeography-based optimization, Int. J. Electr.
Electron. Eng., 2010, 4, (8), pp. 568576
Mahadevan, K., Kannan, P.S.: Comprehensive learning particle swarm
optimization for reactive power dispatch, Appl. Soft Comput., 2010, 10,
pp. 641652
Subbaraj, P., Rajnarayanan, P.N.: Optimal reactive power dispatch
using self-adaptive real coded genetic algorithm, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2009, 79, pp. 374 381
The IEEE 57-Bus Test System [online], available at http://www.ee.
washington.edu/research/pstca/pf57/pg_tca57bus.htm
Dai, C., Chen, W., Zhu, Y., Zhang, X.: Seeker optimization algorithm
for optimal reactive power dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2009, 24,
(3), pp. 1218 1231
The IEEE 118-Bus Test System [online], available at http://www.ee.
washington.edu/research/pstca/pf118/pg_tca118bus.htm
Alsac, O., Stott, B.: Optimal load ow with steady-state security, IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1974, PAS-93, (3), pp. 745751
Lee, K.Y., Park, Y.M., Ortiz, J.L.: A united approach to optimal real
and reactive power dispatch, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1985,
PAS-104, (5), pp. 1147 1153
Khorsandi, A., Alimardani, A., Vahidi, B., Hosseinian, S.H.: Hybrid
shufed frog leaping algorithm and Nelder-Mead simplex search for
optimal reactive power dispatch, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011,
5, (2), pp. 249 256
Thukaram, D., Yesuratnam, G.: Optimal reactive power dispatch in a
large power system with AC-DC and FACTS controllers, IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., 2008, 2, (1), pp. 7181

Appendix

Table 13 Generator data [1, 30, 31]

Bus no.

1
2
5
8
11
13

Cost coefficients
a

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

2.00
1.75
1.00
3.25
3.00
3.00

0.00375
0.01750
0.06250
0.00834
0.02500
0.02500

Table 14 Load data [1, 30, 31]

Bus no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Load
P, p.u.

Q, p.u.

0.000
0.217
0.024
0.076
0.942
0.000
0.228
0.300
0.000
0.058
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.062
0.082
0.035
0.090

0.000
0.127
0.012
0.016
0.190
0.000
0.109
0.300
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.016
0.025
0.018
0.058
Continued

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681

Table 14 Continued
Bus no.

Load

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

P, p.u.

Q, p.u.

0.032
0.095
0.022
0.175
0.000
0.032
0.087
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.106

0.009
0.034
0.007
0.112
0.000
0.016
0.067
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.019

Table 15 Line data [1, 30, 31]

Line
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

From
bus

To
bus

R, p.u.

X, p.u.

B, p.u.

Tap
settings

1
1
2
3
2
2
4
5
6
6
6
6
9
9
4
12
12
12
12
14
16
15
18
19
10
10
10
10
21
15
22
23
24
25
25
28
27
27
29
8
6

2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
15
17
18
19
20
20
17
21
22
22
23
24
24
25
26
27
27
29
30
30
28
28

0.0192
0.0452
0.0570
0.0132
0.0472
0.0581
0.0119
0.0460
0.0267
0.0120
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1231
0.0662
00945
0.2210
0.0824
0.1070
0.0639
0.0340
0.0936
0.0324
0.0348
0.0727
0.0116
0.1000
0.1150
0.1320
0.1885
0.2544
0.1093
0.0000
0.2198
0.3202
0.2399
0.0636
0.0169

0.0575
0.1852
0.1737
0.0379
0.1983
0.1763
0.0414
0.1160
0.0820
0.0420
0.2080
0.5560
0.2080
0.1100
0.2560
0.1400
0.2559
0.1304
0.1987
0.1997
0.1932
0.2185
0.1292
0.0680
0.2090
0.0845
0.0749
0.1499
0.0236
0.2020
0.1790
0.2700
0.3292
0.3800
0.2087
0.3960
0.4153
0.6027
0.4533
0.2000
0.0599

0.0264
0.0204
0.0184
0.0042
0.0209
0.0187
0.0045
0.0102
0.0085
0.0045
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0214
0.0065

1.078
1.069

1.032

1.068

575

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org
Table 16 Limits of the control variables [1, 31]
Control variables
P1
P2
P5
P8
P11
P13
V1
V2
V5
V8
V11
V13
T11
T12
T15
T36
QC10
QC12
QC15
QC17
QC20
QC21
QC23
QC24
QC29

Min

Max

50
20
15
10
10
12
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

200
80
50
35
30
40
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

576

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, Vol. 6, Iss. 6, pp. 563 576
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0681