Transactions on Combinatorics

ISSN (print): 2251-8657, ISSN (on-line): 2251-8665

Vol. x No. x (201x), pp. xx-xx.
www.ui.ac.ir
c 2012 University of Isfahan
www.combinatorics.ir

AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL POWER FLOW

TECHNIQUES

ABHISHEK JAIN, SONIYA LALWANI∗ , MAHENDRA LALWANI

Communicated by

Abstract. Power systems are becoming larger and complex with rise in electricity demand. This
increases complexity of a system for finding the optimal solution of power flow problem. Solution of
optimal power flow (OPF) problem has now become necessity for electrical utilities because of the
objectives of minimum fuel cost, power loss, emission and voltage deviation, which are non-convex,
non-linear and non-smooth in nature. Consequently, system can cause severe damage both physically
and economically if operated without any power flow analysis. This paper reviews different optimiza-
tion techniques for solution of OPF problems with more than one objectives subject to balanced and
unbalanced constraints.

1. Introduction

Optimal power flow (OPF) has now become important tool for power system which is used broadly
in power system planning and operation. An optimization problem includes objective function to
be optimized, a set of decision variables and balanced and unbalanced constraints. The objective
function in case of OPF is traditionally a sum of linear or quadratic generation costs which are
calculated from the decision variables, which are typically generator output power values in the system
[28]. The constraints can simulate various power system phenomena, such as thermal limits of lines
and generators, as well as control policies. In the 1960’s, a method was developed to investigate
non-deterministic in feeds and their effects on line flows in a power system [15]. However, many of
the equations developed were non-linear and therefore very difficult to compute with the hardware
available at the time. As the consumption of electricity is increasing day by day, more energy power
plants are being established and connected to power grid. Therefore, this increases the instability in
MSC(2010): Primary: 68-02; Secondary: 90C29, 68T20, 92B20.
Keywords: Conventional methods; classification of optimization techniques; heuristic methods; multi-objective optimal power flow;
optimization techniques.
Received: dd mmmm yyyy, Accepted: dd mmmm yyyy.
∗Corresponding author.
1
2 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

the power system. The solution of non-linear equations within optimization problems has now become
feasible because of availability of faster equipment. OPF problem can be solved by conventional or
heuristic methods. Many researchers have shown that conventional methods in present scenario cannot
give reliable solution because of poor convergence, local optima entrapment and slower speed. If the
numbers of variables are large, their computational speed for optimizing a solution becomes too slow
and expensive for solution of a large system [6]. Therefore, the conventional deterministic methods
are not enough for finding a desired optimal solution. To overcome the limitations of conventional
methods, a probabilistic, learning or goal discovery based approach or heuristic approach is used. In
the next section, a brief idea of OPF problem and different optimization techniques used for solving
OPF problem is presented.

2. Optimal Power Flow and Classification of Optimization Techniques

The OPF problem as discussed in earlier section contains large scale optimization problem, non-
linear objectives having both discrete and continuous variables. Optimization of multiple objectives
like minimum of generation cost, voltage deviation, power losses and emission can be done by control-
ling flow of power in an electrical system without breaching network constraints or system operating
limits. OPF determines voltage, current and power injected for the system similarly as conventional
power flow analysis but works with under constrained system. So that, multiple solutions are possible
[52]. In present scenario, system requires not only economic operation but also environmental friendly
and feasible operating system. This increases complexity and non-linearity of the system for solving
OPF problem. Many objectives need to be optimized in a single run. Many researchers have come up
with several techniques or methods to solve the multi-objective problems. Optimization techniques are
classified in two parts conventional methods and heuristic methods. There are several techniques for
optimization purpose. Figure 1 shows different optimization techniques including some popular tech-
niques for solution of OPF problem. Conventional methods have limited capability of handling large
scale system constraints and require initial starting point for optimization. They are poor in conver-
gence and may trap in local optimum. They are mostly suitable for single objective at single run and
become slow if there is large number of variables. Consequently, these methods are computationally
not suitable for finding solution of multiple objectives with several variables [2]. To overcome these
drawbacks from analytical methods, heuristic based methods have been flourished in recent past. The
main advantage of these methods is that they are versatile for handling large qualitative constraints.
They are more suitable to find global optimum solution as well as local optimum solution.

In the tables below, there are several methods for multiple objective optimization of the OPF
problem which have already been proposed. Here, some of the techniques briefly explained which are
largely used by the searchers and shown in table 1 and 2. Optimization of active and reactive power
dispatch problem while maximizing voltage security is done by using interior point method along
with goal programming and linearity combined objective functions [63]. In [41], an improved real
and reactive power control technique using linear programming proposed which partitioned Jacobian
Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al. 3

Figure 1. Classification of Optimization Techniques

matrix in a unified way, consequently common sensitivity matrices for both real and reactive power
can be achieved. An evolutionary programming based OPF algorithm enhanced by the inclusion of
gradient information to speed the search in areas local to candidate solutions and less sensitive to
starting points proposed in [79]. In [49], genetic algorithm (GA) is used for solving OPF problem in
feasible and reliable way satisfying the equality constraints with the desired precision. In [3], a Non-
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) technique is proposed for solving environment/emission
dispatch optimization problem with diversity preserving mechanism. In [19], a modified Improved
NSGA (NSGA-II) algorithm presented for economic and emission dispatch problem which overcomes
the drawbacks of NSGA-II for lacking uniform diversity and absence of lateral diversity among the
non-dominated solutions. In [66], a mathematical model for solving multi-objective OPF (MO-OPF)
problem considering uncertainties modeled by fuzzy numbers and a model developed for analyzing
trade-off between profit and security constraint. A MO-OPF solution proposed by parallel elitist
NSGA-II with innovative weight assuming technique based on fuzzy membership variance considering
fuel cost and transient stability as objective function. In [6], a novel particle swarm optimization
(PSO) based approach to OPF problem is presented with flexibility to control the balance between
the global and local search space and avoids premature convergence of the search process. In [17],
this paper proposed chaotic improved PSO (CIPSO) based optimization technique to minimize power
losses and L-index in power systems for multi-objective reactive power dispatch (MORPD) problem.
4 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

In [40], the MO-OPF problem considering fuel cost and losses as objective function solved by stochastic
weighted turn-off chaotic PSO(SWTCPSO). This paper used mechanism of stochastic weighted turn-
off and dynamic coefficients factors to overcome the premature convergence. The application pf
MOPSO in several areas and different varients are discussed in [38]. The DE algorithm presented
for the solution of MO-OPF under contingent operations stated considering multiple shunt FACTS
devices [39]. A solution of MO-OPF implemented using DE algorithm demonstrated effectiveness and
robustness over evolutionary based NSGA-II and classical weighted summation approach in [55]. A
graph theoretical method is applied to analyze dynamic systems with time delay in the inputs and
states [44]. The Efficient EA proposed with the concepts from simple evolutionary algorithm and
classical algorithms to solve the OPF problem in [56]. The strength Pareto Evolutionary algorithm
(SPEA) proposed for solution of OPF problem to get optimal cost and voltage profile for the system
[4]. In [8], the improved SPEA (SPEA2) technique presented to overcome the drawbacks of multiple
runs, inability to find Pareto optimal solutions for non-convex optimal front. The modified teaching
learning based optimization (TLBO) presented aiming to solve the multiple objective problems by self-
adaptive wavelet technique to deal with search capability, population diversity and convergence speed
[27]. In [11], non-dominated sorting multi-objective opposition based GSA (NSMOGSA) proposed to
solve different single and multiple OPF problems by improving the current population toward optimal
solutions and accelerating the convergence of the solutions. A new algorithm introduced to solve large
scale problems and improvement of space complexity [35] Table [1] shows some of the conventional
optimization methods for solving OPF problems and table [2] shows some heuristic methods and
applied methods on these heuristic techniques in subsection. These tables also show the controlling
parameters of methods and power flow constraints used in particular.
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Table 1: Brief summary of solution of OPF problem
by conventional methods

Year and Techniques Controlling Objective function Constraints Remark

reference parameters
1968[20] Newton based - - Vg1 = [0.915, 1.14] A practical Solution
Mathematical Vg2 = [0.95, 1.05] for power flow problem
method considering control
variables to minimize
system costs or losses

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

1982[13] Hessian ρL = [0, 1] Min - A reduced hessian
i=1
Method based optimization
method for solving
economic dispatch
problem

1982[70] PQ Decompo- λo = [0, 1] ! V1 = [0.9, 1.1] Cost and transmission

sition
Nl
P Vi2 + Vj2 − V3 = [0.9, 1.1] real power losses are
M in gk
i=1 2Vi Vj cos (θij ) considered as objective
function

Jain et. al.

 6
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1 !
PNl Vi2 + Vj2 −
1989[42] Quadratic - M in gk - Extension of basic
i=1 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
Programming Nl
Kuhn-Tucker condi-
P
M in |Vi − Vref | tions and employing a
i=1
quadratic model

1984[75] Quasi-Newton - - - Used explicit Newton

Approach method for OPF prob-
lem solution. Em-
ploying Special sparsity
technique

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

2003[63] Interior Point λP = [0.8, 1.6] M in - Goal programming and

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

i=1
Programming linearly combined ob-
jective functions

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

2007[43] Interior Point - M in V = [0.95, 1.1] A versatile, efficient
i=1
Programming and faster method
among the gradient
based methods
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

1993 [41] Linear Pro- - M in Vg = [0.9, 1.15] Uniformly partitioned
i=1
gramming V = [0.9, 1.15] Jacobian matrix for
TP = [0.9, 1.1] common sensitivity
QC = [0, 15.5] matrices for both real
and reactive power

Table 2: Review of heuristic methods for solving OPF

problem

Techniques Applied Controlling Objective function Constraints Remark

method, parameters
year and
reference
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
GA, 2004 [49] Pm = 0.9, i=1 Vg = Satisfying the equality
Nl
2 2
P

Pc = 0.01, M in gk V i +V j − 2Vi Vj cos (θij ) [0.95, 1.05] constraints with the de-
i=1
δ = [0, 1], V = [0.9, 1.1] sired precision.
µ = [0, 1] Qc = ±75%
GA(Genetic Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

Algorithm) EGA, 2002[9] Pc = 0.9, M in Vg = Using problem specific

Jain et. al.

i=1
Pm = 0.01 [0.95, 1.05] operators to get faster
TP = [0.9, 1.1] operation
QC = [0, 0.05]
 8
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
modified Pc = 0.85, i=1 - Overcomes the uniform
Ng
λi P g i
αPg2i
P

1 M in + βPgi + γi + ξe
NSGA-II, Pm = 6 diversity and absence
i=1
2011[19] ηc = 5 η = 15 of a lateral diversity
r = 0.65 among the Pareto-
optimal solutions

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
PNl
Multi- Pc = 0.7 M in |Vi − Vref | Vg = Considering uncertain-
i=1
objective Pm = 0.061, Ng [0.95, 1.05] ties modeled by fuzzy
αP 2 gi + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

GA, 2013[66] λl = [1, 2] M in TP = [0.9, 1.1] numbers and a model
i=1
developed for analyz-
ing trade-off between

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

profit and security con-
straints.

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Parallel - Nf P T (" ! #) - Algorithm with inno-
Ng P
P ∆t δni (k)−
NSGA-II, M ax φ ,δ λ vative weight assuming
i=1 k=1 n=k δnGOI (k)
2015[77] method based on fuzzy
membership variance.
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
M in
di sin ei Pgmax



NSGA, αC = 0.5, i=1 i
− Pgi - Proposed algorithm ap-
Ng
λi Pgi
αi Pg2i
P

2003[3] r = [0, 1], M in + βi Pgi + γi + ξi e plied with diversity pre-
i=1
β = 5, serving mechanism.
λf = 3000,
w=
rand[0, 1],
Pc = 0.9,
Pm = 0.1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
Modified - k=1 Vg = Incorporating con-
NSGA-II, M ax (Lindex ) [0.95, 1.1] trolled elitism and
2011[32] QC = [0, 0.01] dynamic crowding dis-
tance for solving ORPD
problem.

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
EGA-DQLF, Pc = 1.0 Vg = Better optimal solution
 
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
2010[37] Pm = 0.006, k=1 [0.95, 1.1] V = and calculate recom-
C1 = C2 = M ax (Lindex ) [0.95, 1.05] mended set points for
2.05, ω = 1.2 Tp = [0.9, 1.1] power system controls.
QC = [0, 0.01]

Jain et. al.

 10
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
i,j=1
NSGA-II, wv = wq = Nl
- Robust MORPD in-
P
2010[81] 0.5 M in |Vi − Vref | cludes information of
i=1
load increase directions
to assist the stability of
most favourable solu-
tions in the presence of
load irregularities.

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

PSO, 2002[6] ω = 1.0, M in Vg = Flexible technique,
i=1
αd = 0.098, [0.95, 1.1] Avoids premature
PSO(Particle
C1 = C2 = 2 Tp = [0.9, 1.1] convergence
Swarm Opti-
QC = [0, 0.05]
mization) Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

modified ωmin = M in - Dynamic search space

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

i=1
PSO, 2005[51] [0.1, 0.5], reduction strategy to
ωmax = improve the conver-
[0.5, 1.0], gence speed
C1 , C2 =
[1, 2], ∆ =
[0.01, 0.8]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
2 2
P
M in gk Vi + Vj − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
Improved ω = [0.9, 0.4] i,j=1 TP = [0.9, 1.1] Allows several non-
PSO, 2012[46] M ax (Lindex ) dominated solutions
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
i=1
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
!
Nl
P Vi2 + Vj2 −
M in gk
CIPSO, 2014 ωmax = 0.9, i,j=1 2Vi Vj cos (θij ) V = Minimization of power
[17] ωmin = 0.4, M ax (Lindex ) [0.94, 1.06] losses and voltage sta-
r1 , r2 = Vg = [0.9, 1.1] bility index improve-
(0, 1), TP = [0.9, 1.1] ment as objective func-
λcp = [0, 4], QC = [0, 0.3] tion
c1 , c2 = 2,
Pc = 0.8
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
SWTCPSO, - i=1 V = -
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
2015[40] M in [0.95, 1.05]
k=1
Tp =
[0.95, 1.05]
QC = [0, 0.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
PSO, 2011[30] C1 , C2 = i=1 - PSO technique with dy-
Ng
αi Pg2i eλi Pgi
P

[0, 4] M in + βi Pgi + γi + ξi namic velocity control
i=1

Ng
(ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci )
P
M in
Tribe mod- η1 , η2 = 1 i=1 - -
Ng
λi P g i
αPg2i
P
ified DE, M in + βPgi + γi + ξe
i=1
2013[45]

Jain et. al.

DE (Differen-
tial Evolution)
 12
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
M in
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
!
Multi- Np =
Nl
P Vi 2 + V 2 j − Vg = Cluster based technique
M in gk
objective 100, Pm = i,j=1 2Vi Vj cos (θi − θj ) [0.95, 1.1], to deal with the size of
PNl
DE, 2012[5] 0.5, Pc = 0.98 M in |Vi − Vref | V = Pareto optimal set and
i=1
[0.95, 1.05], obtain finest balance so-
Tp = [0.9, 1.1], lution for assisting the
Qc = [0, 5] decision maker.

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Ng
αi Pg2i + βi Pgi + γi + ξi eλi Pgi
P

Enhanced DE, Wp = Wr = M in V = [0.9, 1.1], -
i=1
2017[54] Wq = Ws = Nl 
 Tp =
gk Vi2 − Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos θij
P
200000, M in [0.95, 1.1],
i,j=1

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

Pm = [0.5, 1], Qc = [0, 0.05]
Pc = [0.5, 1],
NΩ = 21
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
M in
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
Nl P
Nl
(|V 2 |+|Vj2 |−2|Vi ||Vj | cos(δij ))
Rij i
P
M in |z 2 |
i=1 j=1 ij
Efficient DE, Pm = 0.9, Vg = Multi-objective prob-
Nl PNl
P (|Vi2 |+|Vj2 |−2|Vi ||Vj |sin(δij ))
2017[56] Pc = 0.5, M in Qij 2 |
|zij
[0.95, 1.1] lem solution using
i=1 j=1
w1 , w2 = n Tp = Tchebycheff decom-
|Vi |−Vavg 2n
P h i
M in
[0, 1] i=Ng +1
dV [0.95, 1.1] position approach
Qc = [0, 0.05]
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
DE, 2017[55] Pm = 0.9, Nl   Vg = Demonstrating effec-
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
Pc = 0.5, M in [0.95, 1.1] tiveness and robustness
i,j=1
w1 , w2 = Tp = over evolutionary based
[0, 1] [0.95, 1.1] NSGA-II and classical
Qc = [0, 0.05] weight summation
approach

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
Forced Ini- Pm = 0.6, i,j=1 Vg = DE algorithm combined
Nl
tialized DE, Pc = 0.9 M in
P
|Vi − Vref | [0.95, 1.1], with epsilon constraint
2016[69] i=1 V = approach
M ax (Lindex )
[0.95, 1.05],
Qc = [0, 5],
Tp = [0.9, 1.1]
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
i=1
Modified DE, Pc , Pm = 0.7 Nl   Vg = [0.9, 1.1], -
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
2008[67] M in V =
i,j=1
[0.95, 1.05],
Q = ±75%

Jain et. al.

 14
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
Simple DE, Pm = 0.6, i,j=1 Vg = OPF solution under
Nl
2013[39] Pc = 0.4 M in
P
|Vi − Vref | [0.95, 1.1], contingent operations
i=1 V = stated considering
M ax (Lindex )
[0.95, 1.05], multiple shunt FACTS
Tp = [0.9, 1.1], devices
Qc = [0, 0.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
Improved Pc = 0.8, i=1 V = Improved environment
Ng
λi P g i
αi Pg2i
P

SPEA, Pm = 0.2, M in + β i P gi + γ i + ξi e [0.95, 1.05] selection strategy and
EA (Evo- i=1
2017[78] Ne = 50 Tp = [0.9, 1.1] external elite popula-
lutionary
tion update strategy
Algorithm)

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
Modified Pm , Pc = 0.5 i=1 Vg = Solution for single and
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
Multi- M in [0.95, 1.1], multi-objective power
i,j=1
objective PNl Vl = flow problem
M in |Vi − Vref |
EA based de- i=1 [0.9, 1.05],
composition, Tp =
2016[80] [0.9, 1.05]
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
Efficient EA, Pc = 0.95, M in Vg = Efficient and effec-
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
2014[58] Pm = 0.001, [0.95, 1.1], tive than Classical
C1 = C2 = V = algorithm and simple
2.05, ω = 1.2, [0.95, 1.05], evolutionary algorithm
Ei = 0.15 Qc = [0, 0.05],
Tp = [0.9, 1.1]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
SPEA, 2004[4] - i=1 Vg = Optimal cost and volt-
M ax (Lindex ) [0.95, 1.1] age profile for the sys-
Tp = [0.9, 1.1] tem
Qc = [0, 0.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
SPEA2, Pc = 0.9, i=1 V = Overcome the draw-
2011[8] Pm = 0.01 M ax (Lindex ) [0.95, 1.05] backs of multiple,
inability to find Pareto-
optimal solutions for
non-convex optimal
front

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
MOEA, w1 , w2 = V = Using lower and upper
 
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
2017[57] [0, 1] i,j=1 [0.95, 1.1], bounds for determining

Jain et. al.

M ax (Lindex ) Tp = [0.9, 1.1], cost of generation in or-
Qc = [0, 0.05] der to reduce computa-
tional burden.
 16
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
TLBO Improved γs = 1, M in
P
|Vi − Vref | V = Used self-adaptive
(Teaching- i=1
TLBO, αs = 0.8 Ng [0.95, 1.05] wavelet technique to
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

Learning 2015[27] M in Tp = [0.9, 1.1] handle search capabil-
i=1
Based Opti- Qc = [0, 0.3] ity, population diversity
mization) and convergence speed

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

Simple - M in Vg = -
i=1
TLBO, [0.95, 1.1],
2014[14] Tp = [0.9, 1.1],
Qc = [0, 5]
!
Ng ai Pg2i


P + bi Pgi + ci +
M in
di sin ei Pgmax



− Pgi

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

GSA (Gravita- GSA, 2012[29] G = 100 i=1 i - Required less memory.
Ng
tional Search M in
P
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξe λi Pgi


Accurate, Efficient
Algorithm) i=1
than NSGA-II, MODE,
PDE, SPEA

Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
NSMOGSA, - i,j=1 V = [0.95, 1.1] Improved current pop-
Ng
2015[11] M in
P
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci

Tp = [0.9, 1.1] ulation toward optimal
i=1 Q[ c] = [0, 30] solutions and accelerat-
M ax (Lindex )
ing convergence speed
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Ng
GSO(Group Adaptive rn = (0, 1) M in
P
αi Pg2i + βi Pgi + γi + ξi eλi Pgi


V = [0.9, 1.1] Feasible operating
Search Opti- GSO, 2016[18] i=1
 nl   nb
 Vg = ranges of the generators
P sl P
mization) M ax wl sl max + wv (∆Vi ) [0.94, 1.06] with fuzzy decision
l=1 i=1
Tp = [0.9, 1.1] maker
Qc = [0, 0.3]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

ABC, 2010[74] - M in - Faster computation
ABC(Artificial i=1
time and convergence
Bee Colony)
than GA and PSO

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
i=1 !
Efficient - Nl
P Vi2 + Vj2 − Vg = Gives efficient and effec-
M in gk
ABC, 2013[7] i,j=1 2tk Vi Vj cos (θi − θj ) [0.95, 1.1], tive solution. Satisfying
M ax (Lindex ) V = all the constraints
Nl
M in
P
|Vi − Vref | [0.95, 1.1],
i=1 Qc = [0, 0.05],
Qc = [0, 5]

Jain et. al.

 18
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
BFA (Bee P = 6, i=1 - Using some perfor-
Ng
λi P g i
αi Pg2i
P

foraging Algo- S = 100, M in + β i P gi + γ i + ξi e mance matrices to
i=1
rithm),2011[50] Nc = 50, improve convergence
Ned = 15, and diversity of the
Ped = 0.1, solution.
Pg = 0.2,
c(i) = 0.1,
M =2
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
GWO(Grey i=1
Wolf Al- - Nl   - Inspired by exploration
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
Wolf Opti- gorithm, M in and social behaviour of
i,j=1
mization) 2015[53] grey wolf

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
Hybrid GWO, w = [0.4, 1], M in - Enhanced mutation and
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
2016[31] Pm = [0, 0.2] crossover parameters
better performance
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
M in
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− P g i
Nl
Nl P
P (|Vi2 |+|Vj2 |−2|Vi ||Vj | cos(δij ))
M in Rij |z 2 |
i=1 j=1 ij
GWO-DE, - Vg = Hybrid GWO and DE
Nl PNl |Vi2 |+|Vj2 |−2|Vi ||Vj |sin
P ( (δij ))
2015[22] M in Xij 2 |
|zij
[0.95, 1.1] algorithms to check vi-
i=1 j=1
n Tp = [0.9, 1.1] ability for the small and
|Vi |−Vavg 2n
P h i
M in
i=Ng +1
dV Qc = [0, 5.0] large systems with dif-
ferent scenarios
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

Improved HS, - M in Vg = Refined the intervals of
HS(Harmony i=1
2013[71] [0.9, 1.05] design parameters to
search)
Tp = [0.9, 1.1] achieve better optimiza-
tion

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
Multi- Consideration Vg = Crowded comparison
 
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
objective rate = 0.8, k=1 [0.95, 1.1] operator used for find-
HS, 2011[72] range = 0.2 M ax (Lindex ) Tp = ing Pareto optimal
[0.95, 1.05] solutions
Qc = [0, 0.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
Differential - Tp = Enhancing the ex-
 
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
HS, 2014[61] i,j=1 [0.9, 1.05] ploitation ability and
M ax (Lindex ) V = [0.95, 1.1] strengthened the ex-
Qc = [0, 5] ploration ability of the
algorithm

Ng
ACO(Ant Ant Colony αw = 2.50, M in
P
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci


V = [0.9, 1.1] Algorithm used in as
Colony Opti- Search, i=1
βp = 1.89, Vg = middle phase between

Jain et. al.

mization) 2011[73] ρp = 0.15, [0.9, 1.05] the UC and ED phases
τmin = 0.05,
τmax = 10
 20
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
OPF-Security α(p) = 9, M in - Checking viability to
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
constraint βp = 11, counter the non-convex,
ACO, ρe = 0.5, non-linear behaviour of
2013[33] q0 = 0.1 OPF problem

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

BA (BAT Al- BAT al- A = 0.9, r = M in - -
i=1
gorithm) gorithm, 0.1, fmin = 0,
2013[12] fmax = 2
!
Ng ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci +


P
θ-modified Constant M in - Phase angle vectors
di sin ei Pgmax



i=1 i
− Pgi
BA, 2016[36] parameters used for updating bat
(α = 0.5 position to get bet-
γ = 0.2) ter convergence and
solution

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
Trust Region Multi- ρ1 = 1, i=1 - More efficient strategy
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

Strategy objective σ = 1, M in for less or ill-defined,
i=1
Optimal r0 = 1, non-convex systems
Economic β = 0.1,
and Emis- ε1 = 10−8 ,
sion Load ε2 = 10−8 ,
Dispatch, W1 , W2 =
2014[23] [0.4, 0.6]
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Ng
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
Mo-OPF, δmin = 10−3 , i=1
Nl   - Tchebychev approach
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
2017[24] δmax = 105 , M in for local optimization,
i,j=1
γ1 = 10−4 , PNl Coleman-Li scaling
M in |Vi − Vref |
η2 = 0.5, i=1 matrix for global Op-
α1 = 0.5, timization, Hessian
α2 = 2, technique for handling
ε1 = 1010 , the feasible trust region
η = 0.1 sub-problems

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

, M in
i=1
Nl  
Imperialist Modeified λs = 1000, M in
P 2 2
gk Vi + Vj − 2Vi Vj cos (θij ) V = Allowing decision
Comparative i,j=1
ICA, 2014[25] λV = λQ = PNl [0.95, 1.05] maker to obtain a
Algorithm 50000, λp = M in |Vi − Vref | Vg = better informed de-
i=1
100000000 [0.95, 1.1] cision regarding the
Tp = [0.9, 1.1] cooperation of objective
Qc = [0, 0.05]

Jain et. al.

 22
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
i,j=1
MOMICA, - Nl
Vg = -
P
2014[26] M in |Vi − Vref | [0.95, 1.1],
i=1
Ng V =
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi
P

M in
i=1 [0.95, 1.05],
Tp = [0.9, 1.1],
Qc = [0, 0.05]
Ng
EP(Evolut- EP, 1999[79] u = [0, 1] M in
P
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci


Vg = Used gradient informa-
ionary Pro- i=1
[0.95, 1.1], tion to speed up the lo-
gramming) V = cal search. Less sensi-
[0.95, 1.05] tive to starting points
Tp =

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

[0.9, 1.05]
Vg =
[0.95, 1.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
PSO, GA, EP, C1 = C2 = 2, i,j=1 V, Vg = Comparison of algo-
2015[34] ω1 = 0.9, M ax (Lindex ) [0.95, 1.1] rithms on the basis of
Ng
ω2 = 0.4, M in
P
αPg2i + βPgi + γi + ξeλi Pgi

better solution, con-
λ1 , λ2 = i=1 vergence speed, time
[0, 1], taken to complete the
Pm = 0.01, operation and quality
Pc = 0.9 of solution
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

SA (Simu- T0 = 500, M in Vg = Global optimum
i=1
lated Anneal- M0 = 30, [0.95, 1.1], achieved by adequate
ing), 2003 ρ0 = 0.90, V = [0.9, 1.1] selection of anneal-
[62] αw = 100, ing parameters and
βw = 1 weighting factors

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

TS (Tabu - M in Vg = Flexible memory of
* i=1
Search), [0.95, 1.1], search history to pre-
2002[2] Tp = [0.9, 1.1], vent cycling and to
V = avoid jumbling in local
[0.95, 1.05] search

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

WCA (Wa- r = [0, 1], M in Vg = Inspired by the surface
i=1
ter Cycle c = [1, 2] [0.94, 1.06], run-off phase strategy
Algorithm), Tp = [0.9, 1.1],
2016[10] Qc = [0, 30]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl
Hybrid CSA, λlf = [1, 3], Vg = Employed levy flights
gk V 2 i + V 2 j − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P

M in
2014[60] αlf = [−1, 1] i=1 [0.95, 1.1], and crossover opera-
M ax (Lindex ) Tp = [0.9, 1.1], tions to find the steady

Jain et. al.

Qc = [0, 5] state operating point
 24
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
DSA (Differ- - k=1 Qg = ±75%, Applied successfully to
ential Search M ax (Lindex ) Vg = various complex OPF
Algorithm), [0.95, 1.1], problems
2016[1] V =
[0.95, 1.05],
Qc = [0, 0.05],
Tp =
[0.9, 1.05]
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
BBO (Bio- Pmod = 1, Nl   Vg = Employed to small and
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
georaphy Pm = 0.05, M in [0.95, 1.1], large systems having
i,j=1
Based Op- I = 1, E = 1, V = linear/non-linear con-
timization), elitism = 1 [0.95, 1.05], straints and smooth/

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

2010[64] Tp = [0.9, 1.1], non-smooth cost curves
Qc = [0, 5] with different OPF
problems

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
i=1
Nl  
gk Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos (θij )
P
M in
KHA(Krill Vimax = 0.01, i,j=1 V = Algorithm inspired by
Nl
Herd Al- Vdmax = 0.05, M in
P
|Vi − Vref | [0.95, 1.05], herding behaviour of
gorithm), ωn , ω = x = i=1 Tp = krill individuals
M ax (Lindex )
2015[65] 0.9 position [0.95, 1.05],
constant Qc = [0, 0.05]
vector
(Ct ) = 0.3
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
Epsilon con- w1 = w2 = i=1 - A fuzzy based deci-
Ng
λi P g i
αPg2i
P

straint based 0.5 M in + βPgi + γi + ξe sion maker is used to
i=1
OPF solution, get best solution from
2010[76] Pareto-optimal set

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
Game theory θ = [0, 1], i=1 - Considering additional
Ng
λi P g i
αPg2i
P

based EED, w1 = w2 = M in + βPgi + γi + ξe practical limitation like
i=1
1
2015[48] w3 = 3, budgetary and maxi-
w = [0, 1] mum consumer load

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
Hybrid ACO- φ= i=1 - Hybrid method provide
Ng
λi P g i
αi Pg2i
P

ABC-HS rand[−1, 1] M in + β i P gi + γ i + ξi e better features of these
i=1
method, techniques in a single
2016[68] framework for better so-
lution

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

Game theory - M in - Converts unbalanced
i=1
formula- constraints into viable
tion based, action sets and engulf

Jain et. al.

2015[21] equality constraints by
penalty factors
 26
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
GSO (Glow- γ = 0.95, i=1 V = Comparison of GSO to
Ng
λi P g i
αi Pg2i
P

worm Search β = 0.0005, M in + β i P gi + γ i + ξi e [0.95, 1.1], PSO in terms of conver-
i=1
Optimiza- ρ = 0.95, Tp = [0.9, 1.1], gence, solution quality
tion), 2016[59] nt = 4, Qc = [0, 0.05] and computational time
rs = 0.005,
rd = 0.0005
Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
SFLA (Shuffle P =2 i=1 V = Proposed algorithm
Ng
αi Pg2i + βi Pgi + γi + ξi eλi Pgi
P

Frog Leaping M in [0.95, 1.05] does not impose any
i=1
Algorithm), limitations on the
2011[47] number of objectives
to achieve a set of
solutions

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx

Ng
ai Pg2i + bi Pgi + ci
P

M in
BSA (Back- - i=1 V = [0.9, 1.1] Solution by this algo-
Ng
λi P g i
αi Pg2i
P

tracking M in + β i P gi + γ i + ξi e rithm compared with
i=1
Search Al- DE, PSO, ABC, GA
gorithm), and BBO
2016[16]

Pm = Mutation Probability; Pmod = Habitat modification probability; Pc = Crossover Probability; I= Maximum immigration rate;
ηe1 , ηe2 = Expectation membership values; E = Maximum emigration rate; ω = Inertia weight; Vimax = Maximum induced speed; ηc =
Distribution index for crossover; Vdmax = Maximum diffused speed; ηm = Distribution index for mutation; Ct = Position constant factor;
γ = Luciferin enhancement constant; τ = Pheromone; ρ = Luciferin decay constant; A = Loudness Rate; C1 , C2 = Acceleration factors;
r = Pulse rate; rs = Radial range of luciferin sensor; fmin , fmax = Minimum and maximum pulse frequency; rd = Variable local decision
 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx
range; P = Dimension of search space; ηt = Threshold parameter to control number of neighbours; S = Total number of bacteria in the
population; θ = Customer type; Nc = Number of Chromotactic steps; T0 = Initial Annealing temperature; Ned = Number of elimination
dispersal events; M0 = Constant temperature; Ped = Elimination-dispersal probability; ρ0 = Cooling factor; G = Gravitational constant;
rr = Reduction rate; Ne = External set archive; Wp , Ws , Wq , Wr = Penalty factors; NΩ = Archive set; λS , λV , λQ , λP = Penalty factors; ∆
= Step size; w, w1 , w2 , w3 , αw , βw , wv , wq = Weight factors; δ, µ, rn , u, λ1 , λ2 , φ, τ = Random numbers; λo = Optimum factor; αs = Shape
factor; λl = Load factor; αp , βp = Parameters of relative importance of pheromone intensity versus visibility; λLf , αLf = Levy flight
constant; ρL = Lagrange coefficient; λsf , γs = Scalling factor; ρp = Pheromone coefficient; λcp = Control parameter; ρe = Evaporation
coefficient; λp = Lagrangian multiplier; Ei = Elitism index; αc = Crossover operator; αd = decrement constant; Ng = Number of
generators; gk = Line conductance at k th bus; Nl = Number of line voltages; Rk , Xk = Resistance, reactance at k th bus; Pgi = Power
generated at ith generator bus; a, b, c = Cost coefficients for quadratic cost function; vt , vl = Voltages at ith and j th buses; d, e = Cost
coefficients considering valve point effect; vref = Reference voltage; α, β, γ, ξ, λ = Generator emission coefficient; Vg = Generator voltage
limit; TP = Transformer tap changing limits; V = Voltage limits of all buses; Qc = Transmission line shunt reactive power limit;

Jain et. al.

28 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

Cost Power Loss Emission Voltage Deviation L-index

10
Number of Publications during each year

0
2001-earlier 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Publication Year

Figure 2. Number of publications in previous years for solving OPF problem

Figure 2 have the graphical representation between number of publications and publication year for
different objectives. Figure 3 presents literature on different objectives during year 2010-2017.

50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
45
Percentage of objectives in each year (%)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Cost Power Loss Emission Voltage Deviation L-Index Improvement
Objectives

Figure 3. Different objective functions during 2010-2017

Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al. 29

From the above discussion, it is found that there are some opportunities to do further work related
to OPF problem. Some of the research opportunities are shown in the next section.

3. Research Opportunity

In recent year, there is a requirement of clean energy to tackle pollution problem caused by fossil fuel.
So that power utilities are now using renewable energy sources to generate electric power. However,
integration of renewable energy in the power system is very difficult because the power generated
from these sources is uncertain and not reliable, that increases complexity of the system. In above
literatures, researchers did comprehensive work to optimize different objectives in order to get suitable
power flow. But, the effect of renewable energy on the environment and cost of power generated from
these sources needs to be done by using different optimization techniques. Also, while determining the
effect of renewable sources on a power system with the help of optimization techniques or methods, it
has become necessary to fulfill these requirements shown below.
• Effect on generation cost and emission from generator due to integration of these sources in
the power system.
• Effect of renewable energy on environment and economic due to uncertain generation of electric
power from renewable energy sources
• Voltage profile possesses an improvement because of uncertain behavior of renewable energy
sources in a power system.
• Power system requires less power loss so that the solution from OPF problem should have
minimum power losses.
• For optimization purpose, the technique should have less computation time, reliable operation,
viable for continuous and discrete operation and solvable for non-linear, non-convex objective
function.
• The optimization technique should avoid premature convergence and local optima entrapment.

4. Conclusion

In this paper, optimal power flow problem using single objective and multi-objective based algo-
rithms are briefly reviewed. It has been reviewed that gradient based algorithm was first introduced to
solve OPF problem which requires initial information about the problem. This may cause premature
convergence and may confine to local optimum. To solve these problems, the meta-heuristic based
optimization techniques are introduced which dont require initial set point to process the problem.
But it may take time if more than one objective functions are optimized. To overcome this problem,
hybrid optimization technique and Pareto optimal front are produced. In Pareto optimal front so-
lution, two objectives are combined into one objective in order to save computational time. Hybrid
optimization techniques can deal with more difficulties with the help of two or more different opti-
mization techniques in single framework. As the future work, the effect of renewable energy over cost
and emission objective will be analyzed and difficulty in handling controlling variables or constraints
30 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

while optimizing renewable energy sources based cost and emission functions.

Acknowledgments
The second author (S.L.) gratefully acknowledges Science and Engineering Research Board, DST,
Government of India for the fellowship (PDF/2016/000008).

References
[1] Abaci K, Yamacli V,Differential search algorithm for solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem, Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 79 (2016) 1-10.
[2] Abido M, Optimal power flow using tabu search algorithm, Electric Power Components and Systems, 30 no. 5
(2002) 469-483.
[3] Abido M, A novel multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for environmental/economic power dispatch, Electric
Power Systems Research, 65 no. 1 (2003) 71-81.
[4] Abido M, Multi-objective optimal power flow using strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm, 39th IEEE conference
of International Universities Power Engineering, (2004) 457-461.
[5] Abido M, Al-Ali N, Multi-objective optimal power flow using differential evolution, Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, 37 no. 4 (2012) 991-1005.
[6] Abido MA, Optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization, International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 24 no. 7 (2002) 563-571.
[7] Adaryani MR, Karami A, Artificial bee colony algorithm for solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem,
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 53 (2013) 219-230.
[8] Al-Hajri MT, Abido MA, Multi-objective optimal power flow using improved strength pareto evolutionary algorithm
(spea2), 11th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA), (2011) 1097-
1103.
[9] Bakirtzis AG, Biskas PN, Zoumas CE, Petridis V, Optimal power flow by enhanced genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Systems, 17 no. 2 (2002) 229-236.
[10] Barzegar A, Sadollah A, Rajabpour L, Su R, Optimal power flow solution using water cycle algorithm. 14th Inter-
national Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), (2016) 1-4.
[11] Bhowmik AR, Chakraborty AK, Solution of optimal power flow using non dominated sorting multi-objective oppo-
sition based gravitational search algorithm, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64 (2015)
1237-1250.
[12] Biswal S, Barisal A, behera A, Prakash T, Optimal power dispatch using BAT algorithm, IEEE International
Conference on Energy Efficient Technologies for Sustainability (ICEETS), (2013) 1018-1023.
[13] Bottero M, Galiana F, Fahmideh-Vojdani A, Economic dispatch using the reduced hessian, IEEE Transactions on
power apparatus and systems, 10 (1982) 3679-3688.
[14] Bouchekara H, Abido M, Boucherma M, Optimal power flow using teaching-learning-based optimization technique,
Electric Power Systems Research, 114 (2014) 49-59.
[15] Carpentier J, Optimal power flows, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 1 no. 1 (1979)
3-15.
[16] Chaib A, Bouchekara H, Mehasmi R, Abido M, Optimal power flow with emission and non-smooth cost functions
using backtracking search optimization algorithm, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 81
(2016) 64-77.
[17] Chen G, Liu L, Song P, Du Y, Chaotic improved PSO-based multi-objective optimization for minimization of power
losses and L index in power systems, Energy Conversion and Management, 86 (2014) 548-560.
Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al. 31

[18] Daryani N, Hagh MT, Teimourzadeh S, Adaptive group search optimization algorithm for multi-objective optimal
power flow problem, Applied Soft Computing, 38 (2016) 1012-1024.
[19] Dhanalakshmi S, Kannan S, Mahadevan K, Baskar S, Application of modified NSGA-II algorithm to combined
economic and emission dispatch problem, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 33 no. 4
(2011) 992-1002.
[20] Dommel HW, Tinney WF, Optimal power flow solutions, IEEE Transactions on power apparatus and systems, 87
no. 10 (1968) 1866-1876.
[21] Du L, Grijalva S, Harley RG, Game-theoretic formulation of power dispatch with guaranteed convergence and
prioritized bestresponse, IEEE Transactions on sustainable energy, 6 no. 1 (2015) 51-59.
[22] El-Fergany AA, Hasanien HM, Single and multi-objective optimal power flow using grey wolf optimizer and differ-
ential evolution algorithms, Electric Power Components and Systems, 43 no. 13 (2015) 1548-1559.
[23] El-sobky B, Abo-elnaga Y, Multi-objective economic emission load dispatch problem with trust-region strategy,
Electric Power Systems Research, 108 (2014) 254-259.
[24] El-Sobky B, Abo-Elnaga Y, Multi-objective optimal load flow problem with interior-point trust-region strategy,
Electric Power Systems Research, 148 (2017) 127-135.
[25] Ghasemi M, Ghavidel S, Ghanbarian MM, Vahed AA, Multi-objective optimal power flow considering the cost, emis-
sion, voltage deviation and power losses using multi-objective modified imperialist competitive algorithm, Energy,
78 (2014) 276-289.
[26] Ghasemi M, Ghavidel S, Ghanbarian MM, Massrur HR, Gharibzadeh M, Application of imperialist competitive
algorithm with its modified techniques for multi-objective optimal power flow problem: a comparative study, Infor-
mation Sciences, 281 (2014) 225-247.
[27] Ghasemi M, Ghavidel S, Gitizadeh M, Akbari E, An improved teachinglearning-based optimization algorithm using
Lvy mutation strategy for non-smooth optimal power flow, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 65 (2015) 375-384.
[28] Glavitsch H, Bacher R, Optimal power flow algorithms, Analysis and control system techniques for electric power
systems, In: Control and Dynamic Systems, Academic Press, Sandiego, California, USA, 1991.
[29] Güvenç U, Sönmez Y, Duman S, Yörükeren N, Combined economic and emission dispatch solution using gravita-
tional search algorithm, Scientia Iranica, 19 no. 6 (2012) 1754-1762.
[30] Hazra J, Sinha A, A multi-objective optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization, International Transac-
tions on Electrical Energy Systems, 21 no. 1 (2011) 1028-1045.
[31] Jayabarathi T, Raghunathan T, Adarsh B, Suganthan PN, Economic dispatch using hybrid grey wolf optimizer,
Energy, 111 (2016) 630-641.
[32] Jeyadevi S, Baskar S, Babulal C, Iruthayarajan MW, Solving multi-objective optimal reactive power dispatch using
modified NSGA-II, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 33 no. 2 (2011) 219-228.
[33] Joshi S, Ghanchi V, Solution of optimal power flow subject to security constraints by an ANT Colony Optimization,
Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Information Technology, (2013) 590-597.
[34] Kahourzade S, Mahmoudi A, Mokhlis HB, A comparative study of multi-objective optimal power flow based on
particle swarm, evolutionary programming, and genetic algorithm, Electrical Engineering, 97 no. 1 (2015) 1-12.
[35] Kadivar M, A new O(m + knlogd) algorithm to find the k shortest parths in acyclic digraphs, Transactions on
Combinatorics, 5 no. 3 (2016) 23-31.
[36] Kavousi-Fard A, Khosravi A, An intelligent θ-Modified Bat Algorithm to solve the non-convex economic dispatch
problem considering practical constraints, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 82 (2016)
189-196.
[37] Kumari MS, Maheswarapu S, Enhanced genetic algorithm based computation technique for multi-objective optimal
power flow solution, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 32 no. 6 (2010) 736-742.
32 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

[38] Lalwani S, Singhal S, Kumar R, Gupta N, A Comprehensive Survey: Applications of Multi-Objective Particle Swarm
Optimization (MOPSO) algorithm, Transactions on Combinatorics, 2 no. 1 (2013) 39-101.
[39] Mahdad B, Srairi K, A study on multi-objective optimal power flow under contingency using differential evolution,
Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, 8 no. 1 (2013) 53-63.
[40] Man-Im A, Ongsakul W, Singh J, Boonchuay C, Multi-objective optimal power flow using stochastic weight trade-off
chaotic NSPSO, IEEE Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT ASIA), (2015) 1-8.
[41] Mangoli MK, Lee KY, Park YM, Optimal real and reactive power control using linear programming, Electric Power
Systems Research, 26 no. 1 (1993) 1-10.
[42] Momoh JA, A generalized quadratic-based model for optimal power flow, IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, (1989) 261-271.
[43] Naimi D, Bouktir T, Optimal power flow using interior point method, International Conference on Electrical Engi-
neering Design and Technologies, (2007) 1-5.
[44] Najafi M, Sheikholeslam F, Graph theoretical methods to study controllability and leader selection for dead-time
systems, Transactions on Combinatorics, 2 no. 4 (2013)
[45] Niknam T, Mojarrad HD, Firouzi BB, A new optimization algorithm for multi-objective Economic/Emission Dis-
patch, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 46 (2013) 283-293.
[46] Niknam T, Narimani M, Aghaei J, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Improved particle swarm optimisation for multi-
objective optimal power flow considering the cost, loss, emission and voltage stability index, IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, 6 no. 6 (2012) 515-527.
[47] Niknam T, Rasoul Narimani M,Jabbari M, Malekpour AR, A modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm for multi-
objective optimal power flow, Energy, 36 no. 11 (2011) 6420-6432.
[48] Nwulu NI, Xia X, Multi-objective dynamic economic emission dispatch of electric power generation integrated with
game theory based demand response programs, Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 963-974.
[49] Osman MS, Abo-Sinna MA, Mousa AA, A solution to the optimal power flow using genetic algorithm, Applied
mathematics and computation, 155 no. 2 (2004) 391-405.
[50] Panigrahi B, Pandi VR, Multi-objective bacteria foraging algorithm for electrical load dispatch problem, Energy
Conversion and Management, 52 no. 2 (2011) 1334-1342.
[51] Park J-B, Lee K-S, Shin J-R, Lee KY, A particle swarm optimization for economic dispatch with non-smooth cost
functions, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20 no. 1 (2005) 34-42.
[52] Prasad D, Mukherjee V, A novel symbiotic organisms search algorithm for optimal power flow of power system with
FACTS devices, International Journal on Engineering Science and Technology, 19 no. 1 (2016) 79-89.
[53] Priyanto YTK, Hendarwin L, Multi objective optimal power flow to minimize losses and carbon emission using Wolf
Algorithm, IEEE International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), (2015), 153-158.
[54] Pulluri H, Naresh R, Sharma V, An enhanced self-adaptive differential evolution based solution methodology for
multi-objective optimal power flow, Applied Soft Computing, 54 (2017) 229-245.
[55] Reddy SS, Solution of multi-objective optimal power flow using efficient meta-heuristic algorithm, Electrical Engi-
neering, 99 (2017) 1-13.
[56] Reddy SS, Bijwe P, Differential evolution-based efficient multi-objective optimal power flow, Neural Computing and
Applications, 29 (2017) 1-14.
[57] Reddy SS, Bijwe P, Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Efficient Evolutionary Algorithm, International
Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, 18 no. 2 (2017) 1-21.
[58] Reddy SS, Bijwe P, Abhyankar A, Faster evolutionary algorithm based optimal power flow using incremental vari-
ables, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 54 (2014) 198-210.
[59] Reddy SS, Rathnam CS, Optimal power flow using glowworm swarm optimization, International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, 80 (2016) 128-139.
Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al. 33

[60] Reddy MB, Obulesh Y, Raju SS, Venkata Suresh Ch, Optimal Power Flow Analysis by using Hybrid Cuckoo Search
Algorithm, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 3 no. 5 (2014) 1514-1519.
[61] Ren P, Li N, Multi-objective optimal power flow solution based on differential harmony search algorithm, 10th IEEE
International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC), (2014) 326-329.
[62] Roa-Sepulveda C, Pavez-Lazo B, A solution to the optimal power flow using simulated annealing, International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 25 no. 1 (2003) 47-57.
[63] Rosehart WD, Canizares CA, Quintana VH, Multiobjective optimal power flows to evaluate voltage security costs
in power networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18 no. 2 (2003) 578-587.
[64] Roy P, Ghoshal S, Thakur S, Biogeography based optimization for multi-constraint optimal power flow with emission
and non-smooth cost function, Expert Systems with Applications, 37 no. 12 (2010) 8221-8228.
[65] Roy PK, Paul C, Optimal power flow using krill herd algorithm, International Transactions on Electrical Energy
Systems, 25, no. 8 (2015) 1397-1419.
[66] Salhi A, Naimi D, Bouktir T, Fuzzy multi-objective optimal power flow using genetic algorithms applied to algerian
electrical network, Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 11 no. 6 (2013) 443.
[67] Sayah S, Zehar K, Modified differential evolution algorithm for optimal power flow with non-smooth cost functions,
Energy Conversion and Management, 49 no. 11 (2008) 3036-3042.
[68] Sen T, Mathur HD, A new approach to solve Economic Dispatch problem using a Hybrid ACO − ABC − HS
optimization algorithm, em International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 78 (2016) 735-744.
[69] Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Farrag SM, Solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem via forced initialised
differential evolution algorithm, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 10 no. 7 (2016) 1634-1647.
[70] Shoults RR, Sun D, Optimal power flow based upon PQ decomposition, IEEE Transactions on power apparatus and
systems, 101 no.2 (1982) 397-405.
[71] Sinsuphan N, Leeton U, Kulworawanichpong T, Optimal power flow solution using improved harmony search
method, Applied Soft Computing, 13 no. 5 (2013) 2364-2374.
[72] Sivasubramani S, Swarup K, Multi-objective harmony search algorithm for optimal power flow problem, Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 33 no. 3 (2011) 745-752.
[73] Soares J, Sousa T, Vale ZA, Ant Colony Search algorithm for the optimal power flow problem. IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, (2011) 1-8.
[74] Sumpavakup C, Srikun I, Chusanapiputt S, A solution to the optimal power flow using artificial bee colony algorithm,
IEEE International Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON), (2010) 1-5.
[75] Sun DI, Ashley B, Brewer B, Optimal power flow by Newton approach, IEEE Transactions on power apparatus and
systems, 103 no. 10 (1984) 2864-2880.
[76] Vahidinasab V, Jadid S, Joint economic and emission dispatch in energy markets: a multi-objective mathematical
programming approach, Energy, 35 no. 3 (2010) 1497-1504.
[77] Ye C-J, Huang MX, Multi-objective optimal power flow considering transient stability based on parallel NSGA-II,
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 30 no. 2 (2015) 857-866.
[78] Yuan X, Zhang B, Wang P, Liang J, Yuan Y, Huang Y, Lei X, Multi-objective optimal power flow based on improved
strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm, Energy, 122 (2017) 70-82.
[79] Yuryevich J, Kit Po W, Evolutionary programming based optimal power flow algorithm, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 14 no. 4 (1999) 1245-1250.
[80] Zhang J, Tang Q, Li P, Deng D, Chen Y, A modified MOEA/D approach to the solution of multi-objective optimal
power flow problem, Applied Soft Computing, 47 (2016) 494-514.
[81] Zhihuan L, Yinhong L, Xianzhong D, Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II for robust multi-objective optimal
reactive power dispatch, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 4 no. 9 (2010) 1000-1008.
34 Trans. comb. x no. x (201x) xx-xx Jain et. al.

First Author
Department of Electrical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Rajasthan Technical University, P.O.Box
324010, Kota, Rajasthan, India
Email: [email protected]

Second Author
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering, Rajasthan Technical University,
P.O.Box 324010, Kota, Rajasthan, India
Email: [email protected]

Third Author
Department of Electrical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Rajasthan Technical University, P.O.Box
324010, Kota, Rajasthan, India
Email: [email protected]