energies

Article
Optimal Power Flow Using Improved Cross-Entropy Method
Hao Su 1 , Qun Niu 1, * and Zhile Yang 2

1 Shanghai Key Laboratory of Power Station Automation Technology, School of Mechatronic Engineering and
Automation, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China; [email protected]
2 Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: An improved cross-entropy (CE) method assisted with a chaotic operator (CGSCE) is
presented for solving the optimal power flow (OPF) problem. The introduction of the chaotic operator
helps to enhance the exploration capability of the popular cross-entropy approach while the global
best solution is preserved. To handle the constraints in the optimal power flow, an efficient constraint
handling technique with no parameter adjustment is also introduced. The approach is tested on
both the IEEE-30 bus system and the IEEE-57 bus system with different objective functions to verify
its effectiveness in comparison with a few other methods reported in the literature. Simulation
results confirm that the proposed method is capable of improving both the exploration ability and
the convergence speed of the conventional cross-entropy method. It outperforms the original cross-
entropy, its variant GSCE and other methods in most of the OPF study cases.

Keywords: optimal power flow; cross entropy; constraint handling; power system; optimization

1. Introduction
OPF is a popular topic in the field of power system dispatch which aims to opti-
mize selected objective functions with a set of control variables while meeting various
system equality and inequality constraints simultaneously [1]. The OPF problem is often
formulated as minimization of a quadratic fuel cost function without the consideration
of environmental concerns, power quality and other factors that are often presented in
Citation: Su, H.; Niu, Q.; Yang, Z. the practical power system operation [2]. Recently, carbon taxes have been introduced
Optimal Power Flow Using in many countries and regions with the aim to mitigate greenhouse effects, and emission
Improved Cross-Entropy Method. has also been considered as an objective in OPF problem. Meanwhile, voltage deviation
Energies 2023, 16, 5466. https:// and transmission loss are often included into the problem formulation [3]. To solve OPF
doi.org/10.3390/en16145466 problem, several conventional OPF methods are popular, such as the gradient method,
Academic Editor: Javier Contreras newton’s method, simplex method, sequential linear programming, sequential quadratic
programming and interior point methods [4]. Most of these conventional OPF methods
Received: 25 May 2023 assume that the cost function is linear, convex and continuous [5]. However, OPF problem
Revised: 3 July 2023
is often a non-linear, non-convex and non-continuous when some practical issues like the
Accepted: 8 July 2023
valve point effect, multi-fuel cost and prohibited operating zones are introduced which
Published: 19 July 2023
makes these conventional methods less effective for solving the OPF problem and even
may fail.
Recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence have led to the devel-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
opment of more advanced algorithms with global search capabilities such as evolutionary
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. algorithms, swarm algorithms and other heuristic algorithms. For examples, genetic al-
This article is an open access article gorithm (GA) [6], differential evolution (DE) [7], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [8],
distributed under the terms and harmony search algorithm (HSA) [9], teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO) [10]
conditions of the Creative Commons and artificial bee colony optimization (ABC) [11] have been widely used. These algorithms
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// require no information about derivatives, gradients and Hessian matrix, they usually adopt
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ some random search strategies such as randomly generation population, crossover and
4.0/). mutation which can help the algorithm to jump out of the local optimum effectively.

Energies 2023, 16, 5466. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145466 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 5466 2 of 33

Over the past years, a variety of heuristic algorithms for OPF problem have been
developed. An algorithm based on the modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm (MSLFA)
was presented to solve both single objective and multi-objective OPF problems [12]. A
strong mutation was added to the algorithm to improve diversity and avoid premature
convergence. Simulation results showed that MSLFA excels other approaches including
original SFLA reported in the literature. Later, Narimani el. presented a hybrid modified
PSO-SFLA (HMPSO-SFLA) algorithm which profit the superiority of both PSO and SFLA
algorithms to the problem of OPF [13]. A novel mutation named self-adaptive probabilistic
mutation operator is used to increase diversity of population. Simulation studies confirmed
that the HMPSO-SFLA outperforms MSLFA. Similarly, a hybrid modified imperialist com-
petitive algorithm and teaching and learning algorithm (MICA-TLA) was presented which
is demonstrated to be superior to the original version of ICA and TLA in solving OPF
problem [14]. In [15] , artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm was employed in OPF problem,
achieving remarkable performance in IEEE 9-bus system, IEEE-30 bus system and IEEE
57-bus system. Roy and Jadhav proposed a Gbest guided artificial bee colony optimization
algorithm (GABC) for solving OPF problem [16]. In order to overcome the shortcoming
of poor local search ability in ABC, information of global best solution is used to direct
the search process towards global optimal in GABC. A modified teaching–learning based
optimization (MTLBO) algorithm was applied to both IEEE 30-bus system and IEEE-57
bus system [17]. In order to improve the performance of the original TLBO algorithm, a
self-adapting wavelet mutation strategy was introduced to achieve faster convergence and
avoid getting trapped in local optimum. Simulation result showed that MTLBO outper-
formed the original TLBO and other algorithms reported in the literature. Ghasemi el.
proposed an improved teaching-learning-based optimization with Lévy mutation strategy
for solving optimal power flow [18]. The introduction of Lévy mutation can improve the
diversity of population and exploration performance of algorithm. In [19], an adaptive
real coded biogeography-based optimization (ARCBBO) was proposed for solving OPF
problem. An adaptive Gaussian mutation was combined to ARCBBO to improve diversity
and exploration ability. Further, Biswas el. have investigated the performance of differential
evolution (DE) integrated with three different constraint handling techniques in OPF prob-
lem [20]. In [21], Jaya algorithm was applied in OPF problem on both IEEE-30 bus system
and IEEE-118 bus system. Simulation studies confirm that Jaya algorithm can converge
rapidly and provide feasible solutions. The authors in [22] proposed improved krill herd
algorithm (IKHA) to solve optimal power flow problem. Onlook search mechanism was
introduced to avoid trapping into local optimum and parameters adjustment was used
to improve both exploration and exploitation capability of algorithm. Simulation results
show that IKHA outperforms original krill herd algorithm and other algorithms in many
study cases.
The cross-entropy method is a kind of the probability algorithm proposed by Rubin-
stein in 1999 [23] for estimating the probabilities of rare events initially and then it was
applied to continuous optimization problems. Although CE method have been widely
used in the field of power system, for examples: economic emission dispatch [24], dynamic
economic dispatch [25], security-constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF) [26], dynamic
optimal power flow (DOPF) [27], optimal power flow problem with multiple renewable
source [28] and other fields such as: network reliability estimation [29], micro-scale manu-
facturing process [30] and high-speed train lateral control [31], its application to the OPF
problem is still limited. Furthermore, the process of CE method is quite different from the
most heuristic algorithms which means CE method has potential to be investigated and
improved. For examples, population is generated under the normal distribution in CE
method. The information provided by elite individuals is used to renew the parameters
of normal distribution hence to direct the search direction of algorithm. For these reasons,
CGSCE was proposed and applied in OPF problem in this study to investigate its effec-
tiveness in solving practical problems. According to our survey, most OPF approaches
using static penalty function method to handle infeasible individuals. This constraint
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 3 of 33

handling method is simple and easy to implement. However, it requires appropriately

selected penalty coefficients [32]. In this approach, the fitness of an individual is the sum
of function value and weighted penalty value. A large penalty coefficient may discard
infeasible individuals totally but lead to poor convergence characteristics due to loss of
global best individual information, a small penalty coefficient may retain more global
best individual information but encourage the existence of a high number of violation
infeasible individuals in the population. To determine penalty coefficients properly, a trial
and error method is often applied [33]. More recently, an efficient constraint handling
method named superiority of feasibly solutions (SF) was proposed by Deb [34]. Compared
with static penalty function method, SF is easier to implement which require no parameter
adjustment step. Furthermore, based on the reports in [3,20], algorithms combined with
SF can effectively mitigate the violation issue in producing feasible solutions. Under this
consideration, SF was integrated with the cross-entropy method to handle constraints of
OPF problem in our study. The main contributions of this paper are:
• The improved cross-entropy method is presented for solving the optimal power
flow problem.
• The constraint handling technique named superiority of feasible solution is introduced
into proposed method, simulation results confirm that proposed method can obtain
no constraints violation solution with assists of this method.
• The chaotic operator is introduced into proposed method to speed up the convergence
speed and exploration capability.
• The Archive is introduced into proposed method to preserved the global best solution.
The rest of paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the mathematical model
for the OPF problem including control variables, state variables, equality constraints and
inequality constraints. Section 3 presents the details of the proposed algorithm. Study cases
and simulation results are presented in Section 4, and finally Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Problem Formulation
The main goal of OPF is to optimize selected objective functions while satisfy both
of equality constraints and inequality constraints. The problem can mathematically be
defined as follows:
Minimize F ( x, v) (1)
subject to:
hi ( x, v) = 0 i = 1, 2, . . . , m (2)

g j ( x, v) ≤ 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , n (3)
where F ( x, v) is the objective function in OPF problem, x is the vector of control variable, v is
the vector of state variable, hi ( x, v) is equality constraint, g j ( x, v) is inequality constraint, m
and n is number of equality and inequality constraint respectively. The objective functions
of a OPF problem commonly includes total fuel cost, emission, transmission loss, voltage
deviation and L-index [35].

2.1. Control Variables

Control variables (independent variables) used to control the operation state of the
power system in OPF can be defined as:

x = [ PG2 , PG3 , . . . , PGNg , VG1 , VG2 , .., VGNg , QC1 , QC2 . . . , QCNc , Tt1 , Tt2 , . . . , Tt Nt ] (4)

where PGi is the ith generator active power output excluding the swing generator, VGi is
the ith generator bus voltage magnitude, QCi is injected reactive power of the ith shunt
VAR compensator, Tti is tap setting of ith transformer. Ng, Nc and Nt are the number of
generators, shunt VAR compensators and transformers respectively.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 4 of 33

2.2. State Variables

State variables (dependent variables) in OPF indicate the operation state of power
system. In OPF, state variables can be defined as:

v = [ PG1 , VL1 , VL2 , .., VL Nl , QG1 , QG2 . . . , QGNg , STL1 , STL2 , . . . , STL Ntl ] (5)

where PG1 is active power output of swing generator, VLi is voltage magnitude of ith load
bus, QGi is reactive power demands of ith generator including swing generator, STLi is
the loading of ith transmission line. Nl, Ng and Ntl are number of load buses (PQ buses),
generators and transmission lines respectively.

2.3. Equality Constraint

Equality constraints in OPF problem consist of balanced power equations [36]:

Nb
∑ Vj



PGi − PDi = Vi Gij cos δi − δj + Bij sin δi − δj = 0 ∀i ∈ Nb (6)
j =1

Nb
∑ Vj



QGi − Q Di = Vi Gij sin δi − δj − Bij cos δi − δj = 0 ∀i ∈ Nb (7)
j =1

where PGi , QGi are active power and reactive power demand at ith bus, Vi is voltage
magnitude at ith bus, Nb is number of buses, Gij and Bij are transfer conductance and
transfer susceptance between bus i and j respectively.

2.4. Inequality Constraints

Inequality constraints in OPF problems can be classified into four types as follows [37]:
• Generator constraints:
VGmin
i
≤ V G ≤ VGmax
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Ng (8)
i

PGmin
i
≤ PG ≤ PGmax
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Ng (9)
i

Qmin max
Gi ≤ Q G ≤ Q Gi , i = 1, 2, . . . , Ng (10)
i

• Transformer constraints:
VGmin
i
≤ V G ≤ VGmax
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Nt (11)
i

• Shunt VAR compensator constraints:

min
QCi
≤ QC ≤ QCmax
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Nc (12)
i

• Security constraints:
VLmin
i
≤ V L ≤ VLmax
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Nl (13)
i

max
STLi ≤ STL i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , Ntl (14)

3. Proposed Method
In this section, cross-entropy will be introduced briefly in Section 3.1. The principle of
CGSCE will be detailed in Section 3.2. Constraints handling techniques of the proposed
method will be introduced in Section 3.3. The general step of CGSCE for solving OPF
problem will be listed in Section 3.4.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 5 of 33

3.1. The Cross-Entropy Method

In continuous optimization, the cross-entropy method associates with each optimiza-
tion an associated stochastic problem (ASP), which is originally used to estimate the
probabilities of rare events. Then, a random sequence which converges to an optimal
solution with high probability will be produced through solving ASP [38]. If the population
is created under the normal distribution, the parameter σ will decrease with iteration while
populations will become more and more similar to each other and eventually converge to
an optimal solution.

3.2. Cross-Entropy Method with Chaotic Operator (CGSCE)

The principle of CE method will be reviewed in Section 3.2.1. Then the improve-
ments of CE method in CGSCE including chaotic operator and archive will be detailed in
Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 respectively.

3.2.1. Principle of CE Method

We will first introduce the principle of CE method in rare events estimation. Then, the
conversion from estimation of rare events to continuous optimization in CE method will be
introduced. For details of the original CE method, please refer to [38,39].
The probability of rare events can be expressed as follows:

` = Pu (S( X ) ≤ γ) = Eu I{S(X )≤γ} (15)

where X is a random variable with probability density function f ( x, u), u is the parameter
of f ( x, u), S( X ) is a real-valued function defined in some set χ , γ is a real number, I {·} is
an indicator function, Eu {·} represents the mathematical expectation of random variable
under the probability density function f ( x, u).
If probability of event {S( X ) ≤ γ} is small, for example ` < 10−5 , this event can be
regarded as a rare event. A method to estimate the probability of rare events is to use
Monte-Carlo simulation. However, this method is commonly time-consuming due to the
fact that we need to produce simple with a large simple size many times to estimate the
probability of rare events accurately [39]. An alternative approach is to generate random
sample X1 , X2 , . . . , X N with importance sampling (IS) density g( x, v) which is different to
f ( x, u), and the estimation of ` becomes:
 
f ( x, u) f ( x, u)
Z
` = I{S(X )≤γ} g( x, v)dx = Eg I{S(X )≤γ} (16)
g( x, v) g( x, v)

Sample mean is an unbiased estimator of expectation so we can estimate ` by:

N   N
1 f ( Xi , u ) 1  
`ˆ =
N ∑ I{S(Xi )≤γ}
g ( Xi , v )
=
N ∑ I{S(Xi )≤γ} W ( Xi ) (17)
i =1 i =1

where `ˆ is sample mean of sample Xi , (i = 1, 2, . . . N ). `ˆ is also known as importance

sampling (IS) or likelihood ratio (LR) estimator, g( x, v) is importance sampling density,
f ( x,u)
W ( x ) = g( x,v) is likelihood ratio (LR). In order to reduce the times we produce simple, we
can minimize the variance of `ˆ with respect to g( Xi , v):
  
f ( Xi , u )
min Varg(Xi ,v) I{S(Xi )≤γ} (18)
g( Xi ,v) g ( Xi , v )

The solution of (18) is [23,39]:

I{S(X )≤γ} f ( x,u)

g∗ ( x ) = (19)
`
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 6 of 33

If simple is generated under the g∗ ( x ), the variance of `ˆ is zero, we just need to produce
a simple to estimate (17) accurately [23,39]. It is impossible to acquire g∗ ( x ) through (19)
because it contains an unknown parameter ` which we want to estimate. Another way to
estimate g∗ ( x ) is setting parameter u in f ( x, u) to a given number v, and let f ( x, v) close
to g∗ ( x ) as possible. Under the f ( x, v), we can estimate ` accurately just through a few
samples. In order to let f ( x, v) approximate g∗ ( x ) as closely as possible, we can minimize
the Kullback-Leibler distance between g∗ ( x ) and f ( x, v) defined as follows:
g∗ ( x )
  Z Z
∗
D( g ( x ) , f ( x, v)) = Eg∗ ln = g∗ ( x ) ln( g∗ ( x ) )dx − g∗ ( x ) ln( f ( x, v))dx (20)
f ( x, v)

The first part of (20) is constant, so minimizing (20) is equal to maximizing the second
part of (20): Z
max g∗ ( x ) ln( f ( x, v)) (21)
v

Substituting g∗ from (19) to (21), the problems formulation in (20) becomes:

Z I
{S( X )≤γ} f ( x, u )
max ln( f ( x, v))dx (22)
v `
In (22), ` is the practical probability of event S( X ) ≥ γ which can be regarded as a
constant, so (22) is equivalent to:
 
max Eu I{S(X )≤γ} ln( f ( x, v)) (23)
v

In (23), given a sample, finding the best value of v in f ( x, v) is converted to the

following problems:
 
v∗ = arg max Eu I{S(X )≤γ} ln( f ( X, v)) (24)
v

The unbiased estimator of v∗ is:

N
1  
vb∗ = arg max
v N ∑ I{S(X )≤γ} ln( f ( X, v)) (25)
i =1

If we use again importance sampling on (25), the formula to estimate rare events
can be acquired. For the details of the CE method in estimating rare events, please refer
to [39]. Now we explain how the estimation of rare events can be converted to a continuous
optimization problem.
A continuous minimization problem can be defined as follows:

γ∗ = S( x ∗ ) = min x∈χ S( x ) (26)

where S( x ) is objective function, x is independent variable, x ∗ is the optimum value for x

to be identified. γ∗ is the optimal function value.
To obtain the optimum value for an independent variable in some set χ can be re-
garded as a rare event, hence (26) can be associated with following associated stochastic
problem (ASP):
`(γ∗ ) = Pu (S( X ) ≤ γ∗ ) = Eu I{S(X )≤γ∗ } (27)
γ∗ is an unknown parameter we want to estimate, so (27) can not be achieved directly.
Instead, we estimate the probability of event {S( X ) ≤ γ1 }:

`(γ1 ) = Pu (S( X ) ≤ γ1 ) = Eu I{S(X )≤γ1 } (28)

where γ1 is an arbitrarily defined number larger than γ∗ .

Energies 2023, 16, 5466 7 of 33

On one hand, the lager γ1 is, the higher probability that random variables I{S(Xi )≤γ1 }
will be generated under the f ( x, v). On the other hand, many families of pdfs assign
most of their probability mass close to a simple generated under these pdfs with high
probability. If γ1 is close to γ∗ , it is hopeful that simple generated under the f ( x, v) will be
close to γ∗ [39]. Furthermore, γ∗ is an unknown parameter we want to estimate, hence to
leading the failure choice of γ1 . These contradictions can be relieved through a two-phase
multi-level algorithm discussed in later.
In fact, CE method constructs sequences of γt , t = 1, 2, . . . and vt , t = 1, 2, . . . which
converge quickly to optimal points γ∗ and v∗ [38,39]. We firstly discuss how to achieve
v∗ , then the estimation of γ∗ will be introduced in later. It is difficult to solve (25) directly.
However, the formulation of (25) is similar to the function of maximum likelihood estima-
tion (MLE), therefore (25) can be solved by optimizing MLE through following formula:
N
v̂ = arg max L(v) = arg max
v v
∏ f ( xi , v ) (29)
i =1

where xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , N ) is sample value of sample Xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , N ), v̂ is the estimation

of v∗ , also called the maximum likelihood estimator, L(v) is the likelihood function.
It is well understood that the extreme value of L(v) and ln(L(v)) locate in the same
place, so (29) is equivalent to:
N
v̂ = arg max ln(L(v)) = arg max ln(∏ f ( Xi , v)) (30)
v v i =1

According to the multiplication property of logarithm, (30) can is equivalent to:

N
v̂ = arg max
v
∑ ln( f (Xi , v)) (31)
i =1

Solving (25) is equivalent to solving following equivalent MLE formula based on (31):

v̂ = arg max
v
∑ ln( f ( Xi , v)) , i = 1, 2, . . . , N (32)
Xi : S ( Xi ≤ γ ∗ )

Now, estimation of v∗ in problem (25) is equivalent to problem (32). Due to the

rareness of Event {(S( Xi ) ≤ γ∗ )}, if the size of simple N is moderate, most of Xi may not
satisfy S( Xi ) ≤ γ∗ . Additionally, γ∗ is the unknown optimal function value we want to
find, hence leading to a failed calculation of (32). A method to relieve these contradictions
of (32) is to use a multi-level algorithm iteratively by solving the following problem [39]:

v̂t−1 = arg max

v
∑ ln( f ( Xi , v)) , i = 1, 2, . . . , N (33)
Xi : S( Xi ≤γ̂t )

Initially, chose a relatively small parameter ρ, for example ρ = 0.01. Setting the original
parameter of density function as v0 = u. Let origin probability of even `1 = Pv0 (S( X ) ≤ γ1 )
is at least ρ, so that even though when N is moderate, individuals of sample satisfying
Xi ≤ γ1 will be generated with high probability under f ( x, v0 ). Although γ1 is unknown,
we can generate a sample X under the density function f ( x, v0 ), and use sample ρ − quantile
to estimate it:
γ̂1 = S(dρN e) (34)
where d.e is the function that round up a number to its nearest integer large than or equal
to this number.
In second iteration (t = 2), v̂1 can be calculated by γ̂1 through (33). Repeating above
procedure, a random sequence γ̂1 , γ̂2 , . . . which is monotonically decreasing with high
probability and γ∗ will be obtained in a finite number of iterations [40]. In summary, the
best solution of (26) can be achieved by solving (33) in a finite number of iterations. The
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 8 of 33

exact form of f ( x, v) is undefined until now, normal distribution N µ, σ2 is one of the best

choices to define f ( x, v) as the maximum likelihood estimator of normal distribution is

easy to calculate as follows:
µ̂ = X̄ (35)

N
1
∑ (Xi − X̄ )
2
σb2 = (36)
N i =1

where X̄ = N1 ∑iN=1 Xi .
Using normal distribution as probability density function, (33) can be solved by:

1
µ̂t =
Nρ ∑ Xi , i = 1, 2, . . . , N (37)
Xi : S( Xi ≤γ̂t )

1
∑
2
σb2 = ( Xi − X̄ ) , i = 1, 2, . . . , N (38)
Nρ Xi : S( Xi ≤γ̂t )

In order to improve the performance of CE method, a smoothed updating process can

be used [38]. When the normal distribution is used as the probability density function, then
µ̂t and σb2 t are updated as follows:

µ̂t+1 = αµ̂t+1 + (1 − α)µ̂t (39)

σ̂t+1 = β t σ̂t+1 + (1 − β)σ̂t (40)

1 q
 
βt = β − β 1 − (41)
t
where t is the number of iterations, 0.5 < α ≤ 0.9, β ∈ [0.8, 0.99], q is an integer typically
between 5 and 10.
Figure 1 illustrates the shape of probability density function of normal distribution
with different parameters. It is evident that µ determines the center of the symmetry,
while σ determines the width of probability density function. Samples generated under
the normal distribution have high probability of being located around the centroid of the
symmetry. The larger σ is, the higher probability of a simple will be located far away from
the centroid of the symmetry.

0.08
=0, =10
=0, =5
0.07
=10, =10
=10, =5
0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 1. Figure of probability density function of normal distribution.

Energies 2023, 16, 5466 9 of 33

The pseudocode of CE method for continuous minimization optimization problem

using normal distribution is given in Algorithm 1 where j is the jth dimension of a vector.

Algorithm 1 CE method for Continuous Optimization Problem

1: set t = 1, initialize µ̂1 and σ̂1 randomly
2: while the termination rule is not met do
3: generate a population X1 , X2 , . . . , X N based on normal distribution N (µ̂t , σ̂t )
4: t ← t+1
5: sort X1 , X2 , . . . , X N according to their fitness values
6: let L be the indices of Nelite = ρN best individuals
7: for j = 1 to N do
j2 j 2
 
j j j
8: et ← N 1 ∑i∈L Xi , e
µ σt ← N 1 ∑i∈L Xi − µ et
elite elite
9: end for
10: smooth: µ̂t ← αe µt + (1 − α)µ̂t−1 , σ̂t ← β t e
σt + (1 − β)σ̂t−1
11: end while

3.2.2. Chaotic Operator

An improved CE method named golden stochastic linear cross-entropy method (GSCE)
is developed by Zhang [41]. The main process of GSCE is similar to CE method, the
only different between GSCE and CE is the process of renew parameter α and β. Zhang
investigated the performance of CE method when β is set to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.328, 0.5, 0.612, 0.8,
0.9 and 1 respectively on three benchmark functions: Sphere, Quartic and Rosenbrock in
his dissertation. Simulation results show that the average values and deviations achieved
by CE method with β ≤ 0.328 is better than that with β ≥ 0.5 in most of cases. Further, he
conducted several simulations to investigate the performance of CE with different α and
concluded that CE method perform well when α = 1.
In GSCE, α = 1 and β is calculated by:

β t = 0.382 × µ (42)
where µ is a random number generated under the uniform distribution U (0, 1).
According to Zhang’s report, when β ≤ 0.328, there is no specific β is absolutely better
than other β, so if β is randomized in (0, 0.382), it seems that GSCE can benefit from the
different value of β.
The parameter β also affects the convergence speed of CE method. According to the
simulation results discussed in section 4, a small β may slow down the convergence process.
In GSCE, β is limited to (0, 0.382) which is much smaller than that in (46), hence to slow
down the convergence process. Value of β for GSCE and CE in each iteration are plotted in
Figure 2.
To improve the exploration ability of CE method, the chaotic operator [42] in CGSCE
is used to determine β. Logistic map is selected as chaotic operator defined in (49), the
parameter α in smoothed updating process is set to 1, β is calculated as follows:

pt = 4pt−1 (1 − pt−1 ), t = 2, . . . (43)


0.382µ, i f γ < pt
βt = (44)
β − β(1 − 1t )q , else
where pt is the probability used to determine the form of β in generation t, p1 = 0.2027.
µ and γ are random numbers generated under the uniform distribution U (0, 1), q is an
integer typically between 5 and 10.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 10 of 33

0.9
GSCE
0.8 CE

0.7

0.6

0.5
Value of

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iteration
Figure 2. Plot of β in GSCE and CE.

The plot of chaotic sequences of Logistic map is given in Figure 3. It is obvious that
chaotic sequences of Logistic map locate between 0 and 1 irregularly. The advantages of
introduction of chaotic operator into proposed can be concluded as follows:
• In the initial stage of the algorithm, CGSCE has chance to acquire a big value of β due
to the probabilistic selection of (41) to renew β while β in GSCE is limited to (0, 0.382),
so CGSCE has chance to converge faster than GSCE in initial stage.
• In the final stage of the algorithm, CGSCE has chance to acquire a bigger value of β
than that in CE method given by (41).
• A large perturbation of β generated by chaotic operator can improve the exploration
ability of CGSCE.

0.9

0.8
value of p in logistic map

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iteration
Figure 3. Plot of chaotic sequence of Logistic map.

3.2.3. Archive
According to the simulation results, the best solutions of each iteration in CGSCE are not
always decrease monotonically. In other words, the best solution in the final iteration is not
always the best solution among all iterations. In CGSCE, the best solution in first generation
is preserved in an archive. In subsequent generations, if there exists a solution better than the
solution in archive, it will be added to the archive and previous solution in archive will be
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 11 of 33

removed, otherwise the solution in archive will remain the same. This can be done by using
SF to select best individual between current best individual and previous solution in archive.
In the final iteration, the solution in archive is regarded as the best solution.

3.3. Constraints Handling

Constraints handling method of CGSCE is introduced in this subsection including
constraints handling for control variables, calculation of total constraints violation and
superiority of feasible solutions. The pseudo-code for calculating the total constraints
violation and SF are also given in this subsection.

3.3.1. Constraints Handling for Control variables

In CGSCE, population is created under the normal distribution, some individuals may
be out of feasible range. To avoid violation of control variables, infeasible individuals is
repaired as soon as population is generated according following formula:
(
j j j
j Xmin , i f Xi < Xmin
Xi = j j j (45)
Xmax , i f Xi > Xmax

j j
where Xi is jth component of individual Xi , Xmin is the lower bound of jth component of
j
population, Xmax is the upper bound of jth component of population.

3.3.2. Calculation of Total Constraints Violation

Calculation of total constraint violation is implemented when objective function has
been evaluated and state variables have been acquired. Figure 4 illustrate the structure
of variables existing in calculation of total constraints violation, where P is population,
ψ records normalized constraints violation of all individuals, Λ records all constraints
violation of state variables in the population, M is the number of control variables, S is
the number of state variables. Θ records all maximum constraints violation of each state
variables in Λ. It should be noticed that infeasible control variables have been repaired
before performing power flow calculation, so the total constraint violation is only attributed
to states variables.
Constraint violation of each state variable in OPF problems is calculate by:
( j j j j
j Vmin − Vi , i f Vi < Vmin
Λi = j j j j (46)
Vi − Vmax , i f Vj > Vmax

j j j
where Λi is the constraints violation of jth state variable of individual i, Vmin and Vmax are
the lower bound and upper bound of jth state variable respectively.
The process of calculating total constraints violation is shown as follows:
In the beginning, all elements in ψ are set to 0. Then both state variable constraints
violation of each individual and all maximum constraint violation of corresponding each
state variables are recorded in Λ and Θ respectively. The number of infeasible individuals
may become zero after several iterations. In order to avoid unnecessary operations, only if
an infeasible individual exists in the current population will the calculation of the constraint
violation be implemented. This is same that we only calculate the constraints violation of
infeasible individuals. In order to make all state variables have fair contribution to total
constraints violation, it is necessary to normalize them. This can be done by using constraints
violation of ith state variable of an individual divided by maximum constraints violation of
corresponding state variables of the population. The obtained result is used as normalized
constraints violation of ith state variable of an individual. Due to the denominator of
normalized constraints violation is the component of Θ, the obtained normalized constraints
violation will become infinity when a component of Θ is 0. Furthermore, if a component
of Θ is 0, it means all individuals does not violate corresponding state variable. So, if a
component of Θ is 0, calculation violation of corresponding state variable must be neglected.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 12 of 33

ℙ Λ

ℙ! ℙ" … ℙ%$! ℙ% 𝛬!! 𝛬!" 𝛬!#$! 𝛬!#

…
… …
𝛬!" 𝛬"" 𝛬"#$! 𝛬"#
Control variables
… … … …
𝑋%! 𝑋%" … 𝑋%&
𝛬!% 𝛬"% #$!
𝛬% #
𝛬%

…
ℙ%

𝑉%! 𝑉%" … 𝑉%# Maximize

…
State variables

𝜓 Θ

𝜓! 𝜓" … 𝜓%$! 𝜓% Θ! Θ" … Θ#$! Θ#

Figure 4. Structure of variables existing in calculation of total constraints violation.

Figure 5 gives an example of the calculation of normalized constraints violation when

the number of state variables is S = 4. The second component of Θ is zero implies that all
individuals do not violate the constraints of second state variable. So, the calculation of
normalized constraints violation of second state variable is omitted in the calculation of ψ1 .

Θ
𝛬!! Θ!

𝑆=4 Θ! Θ" Θ! Θ"

≠0 =0 ≠0 ≠0

𝜓! SUM 𝛬!# Θ!

Λ! 𝛬!! 𝛬!" 𝛬!# 𝛬!$

𝛬!$ Θ"

Figure 5. Process of calculation of normalized constraints violation.

The pseudocode for calculating the total constraints violation is given in Algorithm 2.
where δ is the set of indices of state variable. µ used to record the index of infeasible
individual in P.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 13 of 33

Algorithm 2 Algorithm for Calculating Total Constraints Violation (totalViolation)

1: set all elements in Ψ to 0
2: p
record each constraint violation of state variables of to Λ
3: record all maximum constraints violation corresponding to each state variable in p to Θ
4: if Θ has a non-zero element then
5: for each infeasible individual i ∈ µ do
6: for each j ∈ δ which satisfy Θ j 6= 0 do
j
7: Ψi ← Ψi + Λi / Θ j
8: end for
9: end for
10: end if

3.3.3. Superiority of Feasible Solutions

Superiority of feasible solutions is a constraint handling method proposed by Deb [34].
In our approach, SF is used to handle infeasible state variables. In SF, two solutions X1 and
X2 use the following rule to compare: X1 is considered better than X2 if the violation of X1
is less than X2 or the violation of X1 and X2 is equal and the fitness of X1 is better than X2 .
The SF is performed when power flow calculation has been conducted and the fitness
of population has been achieved. As shown in Algorithm 1, CE method utilizes elite
individuals to renew the parameters of normal distribution. In other words, the search
direction of CE method is based on the elite individuals. In the initial stage, the low
constraint violation individuals are used to direct the search direction under the rule of
SF and the search region moves toward low constraint violation region. As the iteration
of algorithm, more and more feasible individuals exist in the population and finally all
top Nelite individuals in population are feasible. In this situation, the top Nelite individuals
with best fitness are used to direct the search direction and search region moves toward
the fittest region. The pseudocode of SF is given in Algorithm 3 where f (.) is objective
p
function, (ρ) is the sorted population.

Algorithm 3 Algorithm for Superiority of Feasible Solutions (SF)

1: sort Ψ in ascending order, record the sorted value and index to C and γ respectively
2: record the element of C without repetition to Φ
3: ρ←∅
4: for each element in Φ do
5: add element of γ which violation is equal to current element of Φ to υ
6: if υ 6= ∅ then
7: p
sort f ( (υ)) in ascending order and add the sorted index to ρ.
8: end if
9: end for
10: p p
← (ρ)

3.4. CGSCE for Solving OPF Problem

MATPOWER is an open-source software package for solving steady-state power
system simulation [43]. In this paper, the power flow calculation is implemented by MAT-
POWER 7.1. The pseudocode of CGSCE for Solving OPF Problem is given in Algorithm 4,
D
where Gbest records the global best individual , records the the information of control
D
variables, state variables and other information used to calculate the power flow, control is
D P i
the control variables in , X is the control variables of population , Xmin i
and Xmax are the
low bound and upper bound of ith control variable, M is a MATPOWER options variable,
R R R
records the result of power flow calculation, control and state are the control variables
R
and state variables in respectively. F records the fitness of a population. The algorithm
including following functions:
• initialize. The initialize function is used to initialize the parameters of the algorithm
including: N: population size, Nelite : number of elite individuals, MaxFes: maximum
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 14 of 33

function evaluations, Fes = 0: current function evaluations, α = 0.8, β = 0.9, q = 5,

t = 0: iteration number and p = 0.2027 is the initial value of chaotic operator.
• mpoption. The mpoption is a function of matpower used to set and retrieve a MAT-
POWER options variable. More details information about mpoption, please refer to
the source code of MATPOWER.
• loadcase. The loadcase is a function of MATPOWER used to load the data of a specific
test system. This function return a structure variable contains the information control
variables, state vaiables and other information used to calculate power flow.
• runpf. The runpf is a function of MATPOWER used to run a power flow, it returns a
D
variable contains the control variables X and state variables V.
The algorithm is initialized from step 1 to step 9 and iterates between step 10 and step
30. The main process of iteration can be divided by three parts: Part 1: generate population.
Part 2: evaluate population. Part 3: renew the parameters of the algorithm. In step 12, each
control variable of each individual is renewed by the normal distribution. In step 15, the
D D
control variables of population is assigned to control and then is used for the calculation of
power flow as shown in step 16. The fitness of population F can be calculate by control and R
R state according to the objective function as shown in step 18. The total constraint violation of
population can be achieved by formula (46) and Algorithm 2. After the fitness of population
F and total constraint violation of population Ψ are achieved, population is sorted by SF
using Algorithm 3. Then the elite individuals are used for renewing the parameters of normal
distribution as shown in part 3, hence to direct the search direction. The algorithm will
terminate when the function evaluation Fes is equal or large to the MaxFes.

Algorithm 4 CGSCE for Solving OPF Problem

1: initialize
2: Gbest ← ∅
3: D ← loadcase (test system datas)
4: M ← mpoption()
5: //initialize the parameters of the normal distribution
6: for i = 1 to M do
7: µil = µic = Xmini i
+ rand × ( Xmax i )
− Xmin
8: i i i i
σl = σc = 10 × ( Xmax − Xmin )
9: end for
10: while Fes < MaxFes do
11: //Part 1: generate population
renew each control variable i of each individual j by : X ji = N µil , σli


12:
13: repair X using (45)
14: //Part 2: evaluate population
15: D control ← X
16: R MD
← runpf( , )
17: R
V ← state
18: R R
calculate F by control and state according to the objective function
19: calculate Λ by V using (46)
20: Ψ ← totalViolation (Λ)
21: P P
← SF( ∪ Gbest , Ψ, F )
22: Gbest ← 1 P
23: //Part 3: renew the parameters of algorithm
24: for i = 1 to M do r
Nelite
 
Nelite 2
1 1
25: µic ← Nelite ∑ j=1 X ji , σci ← Nelite ∑ j=1 X ji − µic
26: end for
27: p ← 4 × (1 − p), t ← t + 1, Fes ← Fes + N
28: renew p and β according to (43) and (44) respectively
29: σl ← β × σc + (1 − β) × σl , µl ← µc
30: end while
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 15 of 33

4. Study Cases and Simulation Results

Study cases and simulation results of applying the proposed algorithm to the IEEE-30
bus system and IEEE-57 bus system will be presented and discussed in this section. To show
the effectiveness of CGSCE in solving OPF problem, CE, GSCE and several algorithms
reported in the literature are used for comparison. Furthermore, in order to investigate the
convergence performance of CGSCE, graphical comparison of three CE methods are also
given. The proposed method is coded in Matlab language and run on a computer with
Intel Core i7 CPU @2.6 GHz and 16 GB RAM.

4.1. Study Cases for IEEE-30 Bus System

Several study cases for IEEE-30 bus system will be introduced in this subsection. The
one line diagram of IEEE-30 bus system [44] is plotted in Figure 6. IEEE-30 bus system has
6 generators, 24 load buses, 41 branches, 4 transformers and 9 shunt VAR compensators.
One of the 6 generators is swing generator used to balance the power in system. According
(4) and (5), it is evident that the IEEE-30 bus system has 24 control variables.

29
27 28

30 25

26
23
24

VAR compensator 19
15
18
Load
20
G 13
17
Bus
12 G
14 16 21
11 9 22
Transformers

4 10
G 1 3 8
Thermal Genetator
G
6 G

2 5 7

G G

Figure 6. One line diagram of IEEE-30 bus system.

4.1.1. Case1: Minimization of Fuel Cost

Fuel cost can be formulated as a quadratic function as follows:

Ng
Fc ( x, v) = ∑ ai + bi PGi + ci PGi 2 (47)
i =1

where Fc ( x, v) is total fuel cost, ai , bi , ci are fuel cost coefficients of ith generator. Coefficients
of all generators in the IEEE-30 bus system are listed in Table A1.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 16 of 33

4.1.2. Case 2: Minimization of Fuel Cost Considering Multiple Fuels

In practical power system operation, thermal generating units may be supplied by
multiple fuel source likes coal, natural gas and oil [1]. In this situation, the characteristic
of fuel cost function becomes piece-wise quadratic as shown in Figure 7, which makes
problem becomes a non-convex optimization one. The formulation of fuel cost is modified
as follows:
Ng
Fc ( x, v) = ∑ ai,k + bi,k PGi + ci,k PGi 2 , i f PGmin
i,k
≤P
Gi
≤ PGmax
i,k
(48)
i =1

where Fc ( x, v) is total fuel cost, k is the type of fuel, ai,k , bi,k ci,k are the coefficients of fuel
cost of ith generator with fuel k when active power output lies in [ PGmin , Pmax Gi,k ].
i,k
In this paper, multiple fuels option is considered for generator 1 and generator 2, the
remaining generator are same as Case 1. Coefficient and corresponding power outputs of
generators are listed in Table A2.

Fuel 1
Fuel 2
Fuel 3
Fuel cost ($/h)

Fuel 3

Fuel 2

Fuel 1

𝑃!"#$
!,#
𝑃!"%&
!,#
, 𝑃!"#$
!,$
𝑃!"%&
!,$
, 𝑃!"#$
!,%
𝑃!"%&
!,%

Power output ($/h)

Figure 7. Fuel cost considering multi-fuels.

4.1.3. Case 3: Minimization of L-Index

L-index proposed by Kessel and Glavitsh in 1986 is used as an indicator for voltage
stability in power system [35]. The value of L-index varies in range between 0 and 1, where
0 indicate no-load of system and 1 indicate voltage collapse. Lmax as an indicator for the
stability of a power system can be expressed as [1]:

Lmax = max { Lk }, k = 1, 2, . . . , Nl (49)

4.1.4. Case 4: Minimization of Emission

A large amount of emissions like carbon dioxide are produced when thermal power
plants are in operation. The relationship between emissions and active power output can
be described as:
Ng h  i
Fe ( x, v) = ∑ αi + β i PGi + γi PGi 2 × 0.001 + ωi e(µi PGi ) (50)
i =1

where αi , β i , γi , ωi , µi are emission coefficients listed in Table A2.

4.1.5. Case5: Minimization of Active Power Loss

Active power loss in transmission line can be formulated as [36]:

Nl Nl
Fp ( x, v) = ∑ ∑ Gij Vi2 + Vj2 − 2Vi Vj cos(δi − δj ) (51)
i =1 j 6 = i
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 17 of 33

where Vi is voltage magnitude of ith load bus, δi is voltage angle ith bus, Gij is the transfer
conductance between bus i and bus j.

4.2. IEEE-30 Bus System Simulation Results

In this subsection, the objective of different study cases for IEEE-30 bus system are
described in Table 1. CGSCE, GSCE, and CE and are all run 30 times in each study case and
30000 function evaluations (Fes) used as their termination criterion in each run for IEEE-30
bus system. Parameters setting of these three CE methods are listed in Table 2.

Table 1. Summary of study cases for IEEE-30 bus system.

Study Case Basic Fuel Cost Multi-Fuel Option L-Index Emission Power Loss
Case 1 X
Case 2 X X
Case 3 X
Case 4 X
Case 5 X

Table 2. Parameters setting of three CE method for IEEE-30 bus system.

Algorithm Population Size Number of Elites α β q

CGSCE 100 10 - 0.9 5
GSCE 100 10 - - -
CE 100 10 0.8 0.9 5

Simulation Results of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-30 Bus System

The results of three CE methods in different study cases for IEEE-30 bus system are
presented in Table 3. Each case contains Min, Avg and Max three columns represent
minimum value (best value), average value and maximum value (worst value) in 30 runs
of each algorithm correspondingly. CGSCE outperformed GSCE in all study cases except
for Case 4 in IEEE-30 bus system. In Case 2, CGSCE has much lower average value and
maximum value than GSCE. Three CE methods have similar results in Case 4 which aims
to minimize emission only. This phenomenon may be attributed to the emission coefficient
such as ωi and 0.01 in formula (50) is quite small which in turn to makes final emission
value become small. Although CE offer a lower minimum value than CGSCE in Case 2, the
difference between CE and CGSCE in this case is only 0.07%. Moreover, CGSCE perform
well in average value and maximum value than CE in Case 2. It can be concluded that
CGSCE has better performance than other two CE methods in most of cases for the IEEE-30
bus system.

Table 3. Simulation results of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-30 bus system.

Study CGSCE GSCE CE

Case Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Case 1 800.5106 800.5118 800.5150 800.5109 800.5214 800.5416 800.5154 800.5196 800.5353
Case 2 646.5803 650.8642 667.2889 646.6502 660.6629 726.0109 646.7323 657.4860 725.7435
Case 3 0.13667 0.13713 0.13755 0.13701 0.13764 0.13824 0.13657 0.13716 0.13775
Case 4 0.204823 0.204831 0.204854 0.204823 0.204844 0.20487 0.204823 0.204824 0.204824
Case 5 3.10060 3.10727 3.17311 3.10117 3.13434 3.20255 3.10150 3.10719 3.14864
The results in bold type specify the best solutions.

The standard deviation of results and average simulation time of three CE methods
in 30 runs for IEEE-30 bus system are provided in Table 4. The average simulation time
among three CE methods is quite similar in all 5 cases. The lowest standard deviation of
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 18 of 33

Case 1 and Case 2 among 30 runs can be achieved by CGSCE while CE perform best in
Case 4 and Case 5 for providing the lowest standard deviation.
The best solutions in 30 runs of CGSCE, GSCE and CE in study Case1 to Case 5 of
IEEE-30 bus system are detailed in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. In these two tables, columns
labeled by Min and Max records the lower bound and upper bound of control variables
and state variables correspondingly.
According to Tables 5 and 6, all three CE methods do not violate both control variables
and state variables using SF. As revealed in the simulation results, discrepancy of control
variables among these algorithms is quite small in Case 1, Case 2, Case 4 and Case 5
which in turn makes them have similar state variables and objective values. In Case 3, the
discrepancy among three CE methods is large than other 4 cases for the IEEE-30 bus system.
The power output of a generator, the only parameter included in the calculation of
fuel cost and emission should be discussed in detail. It seems that a higher fuel cost implies
a higher emission. However, a counterexample appears in Case 3 between CE and GSCE
where the fuel cost of GSCE is less than CE, but the emission of GSCE is higher than CE.
This phenomenon can be attributed to the discrepancy among generator cost coefficient
and emission coefficient. Moreover, the active power output given by these two algorithms
is quite different. In Case 1 and Case 2, three CE methods gave similar result for active
power output of generator which in turn to reduce difference of fuel cost and emission.

Table 4. Standard deviation and simulation time of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-30 bus system.

Study CGSCE GSCE CE

Case Std Simulation Time (s) Std Simulation Time (s) Std Simulation Time (s)
Case 1 0.000978 81.43 0.007665 77.59 0.002033 77.69
Case 2 9.189230 79.68 49.234060 78.77 26.995089 76.75
Case 3 0.000397 80.07 0.000302 78.52 0.000341 78.86
Case 4 9.276 × 10−06 76.30 1.434 × 10−06 77.33 2.401 × 10−07 74.57
Case 5 0.018013 77.89 0.032825 79.16 0.001334 78.07

Box plots of three CE methods for Case1 and Case2 are given in Figure 8. The best
results in each 30 runs of each CE method are used for box plots. It is clear that CGSCE
outperformed than other two CE methods in minimum value, average value and maximum
value in Case1. Furthermore, CGSCE is much robust than other two CE methods in Case1.
In Case2, although three CE methods provided similar results in minimum value and
average value, CGSCE is obvious much more robust than the other two CE methods for
providing much smaller maximum value in 30 runs.

800.54 720

800.535 710

700
800.53
690
800.525
680

800.52 670

660
800.515

650
800.51
CGSCE GSCE CE CGSCE GSCE CE

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Box plot of three CE methods in Case 1 and Case 2. (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2. The red bold +
specify the outliers.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 19 of 33

Table 5. Simulation results of the best solutions of three CE methods in Case 1 to Case 3.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
PG2 ( MW ) 20 80 48.6931 54.9987 66.7369 48.6898 55.0000 41.5293 48.8815 54.9727 52.1764
PG5 ( MW ) 15 50 21.3708 24.1160 37.3786 21.3849 24.01850 40.3876 21.3515 23.6581 44.2338
PG8 ( MW ) 10 35 21.2720 34.9820 27.5947 21.2687 34.8902 27.1502 21.1956 34.7845 33.1755
PG11 ( MW ) 10 30 11.9708 18.6707 18.4351 11.9460 18.8850 17.2777 11.9446 18.8265 28.6691
PG13 ( MW ) 12 40 12.0011 17.3935 27.8162 12.0000 17.3846 13.3757 12.0107 17.9545 17.5278
V1 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0848 1.0752 1.0572 1.0845 1.0725 1.0806 1.0845 1.0748 1.0545
V2 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0653 1.0593 1.0520 1.0650 1.0571 1.0623 1.0651 1.0595 1.0474
V5 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0338 1.0303 1.0646 1.0336 1.0281 1.0675 1.0337 1.0330 1.0644
V8 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0384 1.0388 1.0445 1.0383 1.0377 1.0321 1.0383 1.0417 1.0524
V11 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0993 1.0890 1.0999 1.0969 1.0651 1.0800 1.0858 1.0685 1.0977
V13 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0462 1.0613 1.0863 1.0464 1.0775 1.0760 1.0484 1.0491 1.0894
QC10 ( MW ) 0 5 1.5896 3.9445 1.4690 0.4296 3.9626 0.4221 4.2222 4.5480 2.1011
QC12 ( MW ) 0 5 1.1263 2.2350 2.1954 2.3180 0.1755 0.0553 0.9207 2.1659 1.7148
QC15 ( MW ) 0 5 4.2301 3.3483 0.6751 3.7287 4.1427 0.7924 4.2812 4.1504 0.0000
QC17 ( MW ) 0 5 4.9719 3.8243 2.1731 4.9989 4.0545 1.5682 4.9687 3.6805 0.3894
QC20 ( MW ) 0 5 4.0218 4.0751 3.0847 4.0196 3.9496 3.0796 3.7656 5.0000 1.3733
QC21 ( MW ) 0 5 4.9972 4.1547 0.0023 4.9982 3.8881 0.0971 4.9573 3.7002 0.3308
QC23 ( MW ) 0 5 2.9141 4.2729 0.0073 3.0651 3.8867 1.4134 2.9248 3.5028 0.0112
QC24 ( MW ) 0 5 5.0000 3.5121 0.0145 5.0000 4.9975 0.1129 4.9812 4.6211 0.0000
QC29 ( MW ) 0 5 2.4753 3.0479 0.0140 2.4203 1.0545 0.0044 2.3190 3.7993 0.0644
T11 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0377 1.0145 1.0352 1.0654 1.0034 1.0065 1.0520 1.0406 1.0415
T12 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9539 0.9865 0.9002 0.9162 0.9535 0.9001 0.9390 0.9479 0.9036
T15 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9687 0.9968 1.0367 0.9713 1.0242 1.0029 0.9710 0.9981 1.0308
T36 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9741 0.9780 0.9550 0.9737 0.9644 0.9490 0.9754 0.9869 0.9594
PG1 ( MW ) 50 200 177.1200 139.9995 111.3297 177.1394 140.0000 150.7777 177.0473 139.9892 112.9882
Q G1 ( MVAr ) −20 150 6.5671 3.2187 −19.3636 6.3058 0.5595 7.9395 6.3123 1.8150 −18.0799
Q G2 ( MVAr ) −20 60 25.4217 16.7715 −4.2206 25.1212 16.5131 4.9374 25.1998 16.3314 −13.9467
Q G5 ( MVAr ) −15 62.5 27.5702 26.3271 60.1374 27.7012 26.5695 60.7670 27.7206 28.6213 58.0778
Q G8 ( MVAr ) −15 48.7 29.2298 25.9939 35.9228 29.6774 30.8777 22.5960 29.6117 31.4906 47.1502
Q G11 ( MVAr ) −10 40 27.1932 20.9029 26.7080 29.7154 9.2955 15.8414 23.6927 17.0266 26.9806
Q G13 ( MVAr ) −15 44.7 −2.7332 9.2131 28.6934 −2.5981 21.4015 20.0612 −1.0751 5.1479 30.8721
Fuel cost ($/h) 800.5106 646.5803 851.1982 800.5109 646.6502 830.2833 800.5141 646.7323 863.1420
Emission(t/h) 0.366195 0.283511 0.243275 0.366253 0.283475 0.300648 0.366033 0.283371 0.241214
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 20 of 33

Table 5. Cont.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Ploss ( MW ) 9.02776 6.76042 5.89136 9.02888 6.77829 7.09840 9.03114 6.78541 5.37070
VD ( p.u.) 0.91661 0.86997 0.88245 0.90823 0.91271 0.86297 0.89005 0.77869 0.87184
L − index (max ) 0.13809 0.13886 0.13667 0.13809 0.13781 0.13701 0.13857 0.14018 0.13657
The results in bold type specify the best solutions.

Table 6. Simulation results of the best solutions of three CE methods in Case 4 and Case 5.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 4 Case 5 Case 4 Case 5 Case 4 Case 5
PG2 ( MW ) 20 80 67.5762 79.9997 67.5737 80.0000 67.5926 79.9843
PG5 ( MW ) 15 50 50.0000 50.0000 50.0000 50.0000 49.9999 49.9996
PG8 ( MW ) 10 35 35.0000 34.9999 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000 35.0000
PG11 ( MW ) 10 30 30.0000 30.0000 30.0000 30.0000 30.0000 29.9999
PG13 ( MW ) 12 40 40.0000 40.0000 40.0000 39.9993 40.0000 40.0000
V1 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0629 1.0621 1.0628 1.0617 1.0635 1.0621
V2 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0568 1.0579 1.0566 1.0575 1.0575 1.0577
V5 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0374 1.0385 1.0372 1.0379 1.0370 1.0384
V8 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0438 1.0448 1.0436 1.0442 1.0443 1.0445
V11 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0787 1.0791 1.0830 1.0783 1.0794 1.0887
V13 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0594 1.0558 1.0621 1.0561 1.0530 1.0573
QC10 ( MW ) 0 5 1.3367 2.1245 0.2767 2.6559 3.0746 0.3799
QC12 ( MW ) 0 5 1.5171 2.1490 0.4263 3.4914 3.6423 0.8590
QC15 ( MW ) 0 5 4.2271 4.2533 3.7370 4.3011 4.1017 4.5878
QC17 ( MW ) 0 5 4.9853 4.9964 4.9993 4.9994 4.8266 4.8344
QC20 ( MW ) 0 5 3.8746 3.9417 3.9839 3.8621 3.7185 3.9194
QC21 ( MW ) 0 5 4.9973 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 4.9278 5.0000
QC23 ( MW ) 0 5 2.9117 2.9168 3.2087 2.9968 3.0725 2.9412
QC24 ( MW ) 0 5 4.9992 4.9992 4.9996 5.0000 4.9662 4.9682
QC29 ( MW ) 0 5 2.3353 2.3996 2.3606 2.3741 2.0545 2.2758
T11 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0708 1.0824 1.0469 1.0535 1.0568 1.0672
T12 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9066 0.9017 0.9303 0.9298 0.9270 0.9183
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 21 of 33

Table 6. Cont.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 4 Case 5 Case 4 Case 5 Case 4 Case 5
T15 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0000 0.9956 1.0013 0.9999 0.9943 0.9954
T36 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9762 0.9772 0.9764 0.9767 0.9752 0.9774
PG1 ( MW ) 50 200 64.0586 51.5010 64.0616 51.5020 64.0434 51.5177
Q G1 ( MW ) −20 150 −2.0884 −2.1765 −2.1445 −2.5592 −1.8719 −1.9032
Q G2 ( MW ) −20 60 12.1524 12.0002 12.1074 11.8771 13.7125 11.4035
Q G5 ( MW ) −15 62.5 23.8599 23.9426 23.8397 23.7576 22.8818 23.9256
Q G8 ( MW ) −15 48.7 29.6258 29.7577 29.3823 29.2612 30.0832 28.9347
QC11 ( MW ) −10 40 23.7034 25.1457 22.5345 21.3193 22.1543 27.2559
QC13 ( MW ) −15 44.7 8.1376 5.3813 10.1862 5.5953 3.3150 6.5615
Fuel cost ($/h) 944.3944 967.663 944.3917 967.6631 944.4232 967.6297
Emission(t/h) 0.204823 0.207267 0.204823 0.207267 0.204823 0.207261
(MW) 3.23471 3.10060 3.23525 3.10117 3.23581 3.10150
VD (p.u.) 0.88808 0.89096 0.89338 0.89745 0.89314 0.89192
L-index(max) 0.13859 0.13857 0.13858 0.13856 0.13856 0.13861
The results in bold type specify the best solutions.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 22 of 33

Table 7 gives the comparison results of CGSCE and other algorithms for Case 1. CGSCE
performed best among these algorithms for providing least fuel cost.

Table 7. Comparison of the best results for Case 1.

Algorithm Fuel Cost Emission Power Loss Voltage Deviation L-Index

CGSCE 800.5106 0.366033 9.03114 0.89005 0.13857
GSCE 800.5109 0.366253 9.02888 0.90832 0.13809
CE 800.5154 0.36663 9.0384 0.90525 0.13829
MSFLA [12] 802.287 0.3723 - - -
SFLA [12] 802.5092 0.372 - - -
Hybrid MPSO-SFLA [13] 801.75 0.377 9.54 - -
ABC [15] 800.66 0.365141 9.0328 0.9209 0.1381
TLBO [17] 801.9908 0.3668 - - -
MTLBO [17] 801.8925 0.3665 - - -
ARCBBO [19] 800.5159 0.3663 0.8867 0.1385
MICA-TLA [14] 801.0488 0.3666 9.1895 - -
AGSO [45] 801.75 0.3703 - - -
SMA [46] 802.5449 0.363552 9.5232 - -
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

Comparision results of Case 2 is shown in Table 8 . It is evident that CGSCE outperform

than other algorithms in both aspects of fuel cost and power loss. Meanwhile, three CE
methods and MSA provided similar results in this case.

Table 8. Comparison of the best results for Case 2.

Algorithm Fuel Cost Emission Power Loss Voltage Deviation L-Index

CGSCE 646.5803 0.283511 6.76042 0.86997 0.13886
GSCE 646.6502 0.283475 6.77829 0.91271 0.13781
CE 646.7323 0.283371 6.78541 0.77869 0.14018
DE [1] 650.8224 0.2831 7.6333 0.5733 0.1366
SFLA [12] 654.47 0.2902 - - -
Hybrid MPSO-SFLA [13] 647.55 0.2834 - - -
ABC [15] 649.0855 0.282563 7.2526 0.6665 0.1383
GABC [16] 647.03 0.2835 6.816 0.801 -
TLBO [47] 647.9202 - 7.1064 1.4173 0.1211
LTLBO [18] 647.4315 0.2835 6.9347 0.8896 -
MICA-TLA [14] 647.1002 0.2835 6.8945 - -
MSA [36] 646.8364 0.28352 6.8001 0.84479 0.13867
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

Table 9 provides the comparison results of Case 3, which aims to minimize the L-
index of a power system. CE gave the best performance among all algorithms in this
case. However, the fuel cost provided by CE is much worse than two other CE methods.
Although GSCE provided best solution of fuel cost in Case 3, the emission and power flow
provided by GSCE is much worse than other two CE methods.

Table 9. Comparison of the best results for Case 3.

Algorithm L-Index Fuel Cost Emission Voltage Deviation Power Loss

CGSCE 0.13667 851.1982 0.243275 0.88245 5.89136
GSCE 0.13701 830.2833 0.300648 0.86297 7.09840
CE 0.13657 863.142 0.241214 0.87184 5.37070
ABC [15] 0.1379 801.665 0.364295 0.938 9.2954
MICA-TLA [14] 0.1369 801.8076 0.3628 0.8521 9.229
SF-DE [20] 0.13671 875.8929 0.22801 0.90387 4.6412
The result in bold type specify the best solution.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 23 of 33

Table 10 is the comparison results of Case 4 which aims to minimize the emission.
Due to the small coefficients for the emission, results provided by all algorithms is quite
similar. Among these algorithms, three CE methods, MSA and SF-DE performed best with
0.20482 (t/h) of emission. Meanwhile, three CE methods gave excellent results in fuel cost
which means a less generating cost.

Table 10. Comparison of the best results for Case 4.

Algorithm Emission Fuel Cost Power Loss Voltage Deviation L-Index

CGSCE 0.204823 944.3944 3.23471 0.88808 0.13859
GSCE 0.204823 944.3917 3.23525 0.89338 0.13858
CE 0.204823 944.4232 3.23581 0.89314 0.13856
SFLA [12] 0.2063 951.5106 - - -
MSFLA [12] 0.2056 960.1911 - - -
Hybrid MPSO-SFLA [13] 0.2052 - - - -
GSO [45] 0.206 954.9512 - - -
AGSO [45] 0.2059 953.629 - - -
DSA [48] 0.2058255 944.4086 3.24373 - 0.12734
MSA [36] 0.20482 944.5003 3.2358 0.87393 0.13888
SF-DE [20] 0.20482 944.3242 3.2179 0.89617 0.13844
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

Simulation results of Case 5 are detailed in Table 11. In this case, the main goal of OPF
is to minimize the active power loss. As mentioned before, reducing active power loss of
transmission line will save the cost of generating. It is obvious that CGSCE outperformed
other algorithms in power loss. Other two CE methods named GSCE and CE gave second
and the third best result in power loss in this case respectively. Moreover, the voltage
deviation provided by CGSCE also outperformed other algorithms.

Table 11. Comparison of the best results for Case 5.

Algorithm Power Loss Fuel Cost Emission Voltage Deviation L-Index

CGSCE 3.10060 967.6630 0.207267 0.89096 0.13857
GSCE 3.10117 967.6631 0.207267 0.89745 0.13856
CE 3.10150 967.6297 0.207261 0.89192 0.13861
EGA [49] 3.2008 967.86 - - 0.12178
ABC [15] 3.1078 967.681 0.207268 0.9008 0.1386
EEA [50] 3.2823 952.3785 0.206735 - 0.1533
TLBO [51] 3.11389 967.49149 - - 0.12651
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

4.3. Study Cases for IEEE-57 Bus System

The one line diagram of IEEE-57 bus system [52] is plotted in Figure 9 .The IEEE-57
bus system has 7 generators, 50 load buses, 80 branches, 17 transformers and 3 shunt VAR
compensators. Among these 7 generators, the first generator is swing generator. Hence,
an IEEE-57 system has 33 control variables according to (4) and (5). In this section, several
study cases based on IEEE-57 bus system are introduced.

4.3.1. Case 6: Minimization of Fuel Cost

In this study case, the quadratic fuel cost is used as the objective function of OPF
similar to Case 1. The formula of basic quadratic fuel cost in IEEE-57 bus system can
be calculated by (47). It should be noted that IEEE-57 bus system contains 7 generators
different from the IEEE-30 bus systems. As a result, the value of Ng is 7 in IEEE-57 system.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 24 of 33

G G
2 1
G
17
3 15
16 G
4 45 14
12
5 13
44 46
18 38 49
19 48
G
47
6 26 20
37
27 21 39
22
28
23
57

VAR compensator
29
24
56

Load
52 40
36
Bus
7 53 42
25
Transformers
54 35
30 50
G 34
55
Thermal Genetator 33
31
10
32
11

51
43

41

9
G

Figure 9. One line diagram of IEEE-57 bus system.

4.3.2. Case 7: Minimization of Voltage Deviation

Voltage deviation is used as an indicator for the service quality of a power system. In
order to improve voltage profile, deviation of load buses voltage from the unity should be
minimized [36]. The total voltage deviation can be calculated as follows:
Nl
Fvd ( x, v) = ∑ VLi − 1 (52)
i =1

4.4. IEEE-57 Bus System Simulation Results

Simulation results of IEEE-57 bus system are provided in this subsection. Objectives
of Case 6 and Case 7 for IEEE-57 bus system are minimization of fuel cost and voltage
deviation respectively. CGSCE, GSCE, and CE and are all run 30 times in each study case
and 42,000 function evaluations (Fes) used as their termination criterion in each run for
IEEE-57 bus system.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 25 of 33

4.4.1. Simulation Results of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-57 Bus System
Comparison results for the three CE methods for IEEE-57 bus system are listed in
Table 12. The main goal of Case 6 is to minimize the basic quadratic fuel cost in IEEE-57
bus system. In this case, CGSCE outperformed the other two CE methods in providing
minimum value. In Case7, the best result was achieved by CGSCE with 0.5880 (p.u.).

Table 12. Simulation result of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-57 bus system.

Study CGSCE GSCE CE

Case Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Case 6 41,667.2777 41,700.4722 41,765.477 41,683.5695 41,718.7954 41,830.2288 41,669.0222 41,681.0337 41,696.1114
Case 7 0.5880 0.6055 0.6322 0.5978 0.6259 0.6731 0.5927 0.6014 0.6238
The results in bold type specify the best solutions.

The standard deviation of results and average simulation time of three CE methods in
30 runs for IEEE-57 bus system are provided in Table 13. Similar to the results in IEEE-30
bus system, the average simulation time among three CE methods is quite similar in 2 cases
of IEEE-57 bus system. It should be noticed that the maximum function evaluation is 42,000
in IEEE-57 bus system while 30,000 in IEEE-30 bus system. It means the algorithm iterates
more times in IEEE-57 bus system than that in IEEE-30 bus system. The lowest standard
deviation of Case 6 and Case 7 among 30 runs can be achieved by CE.

Table 13. Standard deviation and simulation time of CGSCE, GSCE and CE for IEEE-57 bus system.

Study CGSCE GSCE CE

Case Std Simulation Time (s) Std Simulation Time (s) Std Simulation Time (s)
Case 6 31.301284 126.09 30.840003 128.71 8.274621 128.82
Case 7 0.012038 129.75 0.020917 129.31 0.006462 129.73

Figure 10 shows the voltage profile of load buses provided by CGSCE in Case 7.
According to Figure 10, the voltage of all load buses fluctuates around 1 p.u. with small
deviations which means the voltage is distributed equally in load buses.

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 10. Voltage profile provided by CGSCE in Case 7.

Best solutions provided by the three CE methods are given in Table 14. Similar to Case
1 of IEEE-30 bus system, fuel cost in Case 6 of IEEE-57 bus system among three CE methods
are quite similar to each other. As shown in Table 14, the least fuel cost can be achieved
by CGSCE. Meanwhile, CGSCE also provided a less emission solution. In Case 7, CGSCE
outperformed the other two CE methods in both voltage deviation and L-index. Further,
the best solution of three CE methods do not violate any constraint of OPF while using SF
as constraint handling technique.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 26 of 33

Table 14. Simulation results of the best solutions of three CE methods in Case 6 and Case 7.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 6 Case 7 Case 6 Case 7 Case 6 Case 7
PG2 ( MW ) 30 100 90.6551 35.0310 88.4697 72.9556 88.2449 51.1308
PG3 ( MW ) 40 140 45.0428 112.0647 45.0614 82.7747 44.6113 64.7434
PG6 ( MW ) 30 100 71.7058 30.1082 72.9811 46.4756 73.4628 32.4851
PG8 ( MW ) 100 550 460.4218 295.5435 460.2346 259.9944 458.7908 277.3415
PG9 ( MW ) 30 100 94.9459 99.9859 95.6720 99.9999 96.8078 97.2581
PG12 ( MW ) 100 410 360.1364 297.4539 360.9547 375.5547 360.266 341.5521
V1 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0658 1.0110 1.0343 1.0190 1.0588 1.0119
V2 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0635 1.0084 1.0330 1.0175 1.0568 1.0082
V3 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0555 1.0152 1.0294 1.0176 1.0520 1.0101
V6 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0623 1.0017 1.0453 0.9997 1.0593 1.0038
V8 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0725 1.0197 1.0580 1.0078 1.0743 1.0252
V9 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0460 1.0070 1.0265 0.9994 1.0468 1.0122
V12 ( p.u.) 0.95 1.1 1.0448 1.0134 1.0214 1.0265 1.0459 1.0383
QC18 ( MW ) 0 20 9.4015 5.9546 11.8672 16.7208 6.3064 1.6996
QC25 ( MW ) 0 20 14.0329 19.4092 15.6236 16.9527 14.9721 19.7239
QC53 ( MW ) 0 20 12.6535 19.9999 12.9959 20.0000 12.7782 20.0000
T19 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9784 1.0762 0.9293 0.9818 0.9768 0.9395
T20 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0006 0.9476 1.0129 1.0700 1.0000 1.0137
T31 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0094 0.9689 1.0112 0.9716 1.0070 0.9722
T35 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0739 1.0710 1.0908 1.0977 1.0310 1.0650
T36 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9630 1.0576 0.9681 0.9889 1.0371 1.0610
T37 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 1.0281 1.0038 1.0252 0.9992 1.0286 1.0056
T41 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9962 0.9941 0.9829 0.9848 0.9971 0.9959
T46 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9613 0.9190 0.9643 0.9179 0.9629 0.9211
T54 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9083 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9056 0.9009
T58 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9789 0.9296 0.9539 0.9303 0.9786 0.9309
T59 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9633 0.9812 0.9400 0.9674 0.9632 0.9902
T65 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9703 1.0011 0.9494 1.0028 0.9713 1.0090
T66 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9348 0.9000 0.9130 0.9000 0.9321 0.9000
T71 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9697 0.9568 0.9476 0.9599 0.9801 0.9648
T73 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9947 1.0088 0.9938 0.9886 0.9980 1.0064
T76 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9672 0.9001 0.9676 0.9026 0.9621 0.9014
T80 ( p.u.) 0.9 1.1 0.9928 0.9880 0.9709 0.9812 0.9978 0.9954
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 27 of 33

Table 14. Cont.

Parameter Min Max CGSCE GSCE CE

Case 6 Case 7 Case 6 Case 7 Case 6 Case 7
PG1 ( MW ) 0 576 142.7851 404.2220 142.6836 331.5767 143.5011 409.7128
Q G1 ( MVAr ) −140 200 52.0709 −30.4481 36.8008 −8.2358 40.0044 −32.0001
Q G2 ( MVAr ) −17 50 49.9950 49.8081 49.9993 49.9986 48.3663 47.4032
Q G3 ( MVAr ) −10 60 32.6551 59.9857 30.4656 58.5273 37.5336 56.6139
Q G6 ( MVAr ) −8 25 −0.2248 −7.8937 3.5300 −7.8941 −5.2681 −5.5796
Q G8 ( MVAr ) −140 200 46.6276 42.4393 58.4780 28.1540 54.6803 50.5760
Q G9 ( MVAr ) −3 9 8.9994 8.9983 9.0000 8.9997 8.1877 8.9706
Q G12 ( MVAr ) −150 155 46.8299 154.4379 51.7570 117.2250 56.6570 152.5423
Fuel cost ($/h) 41,667.2777 49,522.9283 41,683.5695 46,244.2043 41,669.0222 48,776.4802
Emission(t/h) 1.920768 1.616655 1.921051 1.468387 1.904056 1.703746
Ploss ( MW ) 14.89291 23.60915 15.25705 18.53159 14.88469 23.42392
VD ( p.u.) 1.69590 0.58803 1.45795 0.59778 1.56697 0.59268
L − index (max ) 0.27916 0.30138 0.28163 0.30063 0.28233 0.30072
The results in bold type specify the best solutions.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 28 of 33

4.4.2. Comparision of The Simulation Results for IEEE-57 Bus System

In this section, CGSCE have been compared with other algorithms for IEEE-57 bus
system. Comparison results of the best solutions for case 6 is listed in Table 15. In this case,
CGSCE outperformed the other algorithms which gives the best fuel cost of 41,667.2777
($/h). CE gave second best fuel cost results of 41,669.0222 ($/h). In Table 16, simulation
results of Case 7 are given. It is evident that CGSCE outperformed the other algorithms for
providing much less voltage deviation results.

Table 15. Comparison of the best results for Case 6.

Algorithm Fuel Cost Emission Power Loss Voltage Deviation L-Index

CGSCE 41,667.2777 1.920768 14.89291 1.69590 0.27916
GSCE 41,683.5695 1.921051 15.25705 1.45795 0.28163
CE 41,669.0222 1.904056 14.88469 1.56697 0.28233
ABC [15] 41,693.9589 - - - -
GSA [53] 41,695.8717 - - - -
ARCBBO [19] 41,686 - 15.3769 - -
MO-DEA [54] 41,683 15.2727 1.5033 0.2816
KHA [55] 41,709.2647 - - 1.6893 0.2733
TLBO [18] 41,695.6626 1.980488 15.7469 - -
LTLBO [18] 41,679.5451 1.930676 15.1589 - -
DSA [48] 41,686.82 - - 1.083267 0.24353
ICBO [37] 41,697.3324 1.917903 15.547 1.3173 0.2776
MSA [36] 41,673.72 1.9526 15.0526 1.5508 0.28392
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

Table 16. Comparison of the best results for Case 7.

Algorithm Voltage Deviation Fuel Cost Emission Power Loss L-Index

CGSCE 0.58803 49,522.9283 1.616655 23.60915 0.30138
GSCE 0.59778 46,244.2043 1.468387 18.53159 0.30063
CE 0.59268 48,776.4802 1.703746 23.42392 0.30072
APFPA [56] 0.8909 43,485.933 - 12.1513 -
SP-DE [20] 0.59267 45,549.49 1.2898 18.4275 0.30052
SF-DE [20] 0.59584 45,246.02 1.23453 18.4697 0.30135
ESCHT-DE [20] 0.60416 46,813.22 1.3379 19.0821 0.3008
The result in bold type specify the best solution.

4.5. Comparison of Convergence Performance

The convergence performance of the three CE methods in Case 1, Case 2, Case 4 and
Case 5 for IEEE-30 bus system are plotted in Figure 11a–d respectively. The total function
evaluations of three CE methods in a run is set to 30,000 and the population size of each
CE method is set to 100. Accordingly, every iteration of CE methods needs 100 function
evaluations and all algorithms will terminate after 300 iterations. It is evident that GSCE
exhibited greater fluctuations than CGSCE and CE in the initial stage of these 4 cases.
Furthermore, CGSCE converged to near optimal solution faster than GSCE in these 4 cases
due to the introduction of the chaotic operator and GSCE is obvious worse than other two
CE methods in this aspect. The fast convergence of three CE methods can be observed in
Case1 and Case 4 where all CE methods can almost converge to the best obtained result
within 50 iterations.
Figure 11e,f illustrate the convergence property of three CE methods in Case 6 and
Case 7 for IEEE-57 bus system correspondingly. In IEEE-57 bus system, the maximum
function evaluation of each CE method in a run is 42,000, the population of each CE method
is set to 100. So, each CE method will iterate 420 times in a run. Similar to the circumstance
appears in IEEE-30 bus system, GSCE showed greater fluctuation than CGSCE and CE in
Case 6 and Case 7. No obvious difference of the best results of Case 6 obtained by CGSCE
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 29 of 33

and CE is observed but solution obtained by GSCE is obviously worse than CGSCE and
CE. It is clear that all the three CE methods need more iterations to converge to nearly best
result in Case 7 than that in Case 6.

980
CGSCE CGSCE
960 GSCE 950 GSCE
CE CE
940
900
920
Fuel cost ($/h)

Fuel cost ($/h)

850
900

880 800

860
750

840
700
820
650
800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iteration Iteration
(a) (b)
0.45 13
CGSCE CGSCE
GSCE 12 GSCE
CE CE
0.4 11

10
Power loss (MW)
Emission (ton/h)

0.35 9

0.3 7

0.25 5

0.2 3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iteration Iteration
(c) (d)

104
4
CGSCE CGSCE
6
GSCE GSCE
CE 3.5 CE
5.8

5.6 3
Fuel cost ($/h)

Voltage (p.u.)

5.4
2.5
5.2

5 2

4.8
1.5
4.6

4.4 1

4.2
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 500
Iteration Iteration
(e) (f)

Figure 11. The convergence comparison of three CE methods. (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, (c) Case 4,
(d) Case 5, (e) Case 6, (f) Case 7.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 30 of 33

The convergence property of CE method with different β is plotted in Figure 12. The
parameter α are all set to 1 and beta are set to 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.3 respectively. All cases are
run 30 times and the best solution among these 30 runs are used for plotting. As mentioned
before, β will influence the convergence speed of algorithm. It’s clear that the lager β is, the
faster CE method will converge to near optimal solution.

980
=0.9
960 =0.7
=0.5
=0.3
940

920
Fuel Cost ($/h)

900

880

860

840

820

800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Iteration
Figure 12. Comparison of CE method with different β in Case 1.

5. Conclusions
This paper describes the application of an improved cross-entropy method named
CGSCE to solve optimal power flow problems. The proposed method has been tested on
both IEEE-30 bus system and IEEE-57 bus system with 7 different study cases. The study
considers the minimization of fuel cost, voltage deviation, emission, active power losses
and L-index. In order to show the efficiency of CGSCE in solving OPF problems, CGSCE
has been compared with other algorithms report in literature. Simulation results shows
that CGSCE has competitiveness in solving OPF problems. Furthermore, proposed method
can provide no constraint violation individuals using SF as constraint handling technique
which means power system can operate in security. CGSCE has also been compared with
two other CE methods to show the efficiency of proposed innovation. Simulation results
shows that the introduction of chaotic operator can improve both the convergence speed
and exploration capability of proposed method.
Future research work including using CE method to solve muti-objective OPF prob-
lems, many-objecticve OPF problems, probabilistic optimal power flow problems and OPF
problems considering renewable source.

Author Contributions: Q.N. designed the research, H.S. and Q.N. proposed the innovation, H.S.,
Q.N. and Z.Y. performed and analyzed the experience, H.S., Q.N. and Z.Y. wrote the paper, Q.N.,
H.S. and Z.Y. revised the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by China NSFC (61773252, 62003332) and Outstanding Young
Researcher Innovation Fund of Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences (201822).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 31 of 33

Acknowledgments: There is no any support which is not covered by the author contribution or
funding sections.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication
of this paper.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

OPF Optimal power flow

CE Cross-entropy method
CGSCE Improved cross-entropy method assisted with a chaotic operator
GSCE Golden stochastic linear cross-entropy method
SOPF Security-constrained optimal power flow
DOPF Dynamic optimal power flow
CH Constraints handling
SF Superiority of feasible solution
GA Genetic Algorithm
DE Differential Evolution
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
HSA Harmony Search Algorithm
TLBO Teaching-learning-Based Optimization
ABC Artificial Bee Colony Optimization
MSLFA Shuffle Frog Leaping Algorithm
MICA Modified Imperialist Competitive Algorithm
ARCBBO Adaptive Real Coded Biogeography-based Optimization
ASP Associated stochastic problem
MLE Maximum likelihood estimation
CDF Cumulative distribution function

Appendix A

Table A1. Cost coefficients of all generators for IEEE-30 bus system.

Generator Bus a b c d e α β γ ω µ
G1 1 0 2 0.00375 18 0.037 4.091 −5.554 6.49 0.0002 2.857
G2 2 0 1.75 0.0175 16 0.038 2.543 −6.047 5.638 0.0005 3.333
G3 5 0 1 0.0625 14 0.04 4.258 −5.094 4.586 0.000001 8
G4 8 0 3.25 0.00834 12 0.045 5.326 −3.55 3.38 0.002 2
G5 11 0 3 0.025 13 0.042 4.258 −5.094 4.586 0.000001 8
G6 13 0 3 0.025 13.5 0.041 6.131 −5.555 5.151 0.00001 6.667

Table A2. Cost coefficients of generators 1 and 2 for IEEE-30 bus system considering multiple fuels.

Generator Bus min

PG min
PG a b c min
PG max
PG a b c
i,1 i,1 i,2 i,2

G1 1 50 140 55 0.7 0.005 140 200 82.5 1.05 0.0075

G2 2 20 55 40 0.3 0.01 55 80 80 0.6 0.02

References
1. Abou El Ela, A.A.; Abido, M.A.; Spea, S.R. Optimal power flow using differential evolution algorithm. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
2010, 80, 878–885. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, J.R.; Tang, Q.H.; Li, P.; Deng, D.X.; Chen, Y.L. A modified MOEA/D approach to the solution of multi-objective optimal
power flow problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 47, 494–514. [CrossRef]
3. Biswas, P.P.; Suganthan, P.N.; Mallipeddi, R.; Amaratunga, G.A.J. Multi-objective optimal power flow solutions using a constraint
handling technique of evolutionary algorithms. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 2999–3023. [CrossRef]
4. Frank, S.; Steponavice, I.; Rebennack, S. Optimal power flow: A bibliographic survey I. Energy Syst. 2012, 3, 221–258. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 32 of 33

5. Vaisakh, K.; Srinivas, L.R. Evolving ant direction differential evolution for OPF with non-smooth cost functions. Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 2011, 24, 426–436. [CrossRef]
6. Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975.
7. Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution—A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob.
Optim. 1997, 11, 341–359. [CrossRef]
8. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle Swarm Optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, Australia, 1 December 1995; pp. 1942–1948
9. Geem, Z.W.; Kim, J.H.; Loganathan, G.V. A New Heuristic Optimization Algorithm: Harmony Search. Simulation 2001, 2, 60–68.
[CrossRef]
10. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D.P. Teaching-learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems. Comput. Aided Des. 2011, 43, 303–315. [CrossRef]
11. Karaboga, D. An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization; Technical Report-TR06; Erciyes University, Engineering
Faculty, Computer Engineering Department: Kayseri, Turkey, 2005.
12. Niknam, T.; Narimani, M.R.; Jabbari, M.; Malekpour, A.R. A modified shuffle frog leaping algorithm for multi-objective optimal
power flow. Energy 2011, 36, 6420–6432. [CrossRef]
13. Narimani, M.R.; Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R.; Zoghdar-Moghadam-Shahrekohne, B.; Gholami, K. A novel approach to multi-
objective optimal power flow by a new hybrid optimization algorithm considering generator constraints and multi-fuel type.
Energy 2013, 49, 119–136. [CrossRef]
14. Ghasemi, M.; Ghavidel, S.; Rahmani, S.; Roosta, A.; Falah, H. A novel hybrid algorithm of imperialist competitive algorithm and
teaching learning algorithm for optimal power flow problem with non-smooth cost functions. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2014, 29,
54–69. [CrossRef]
15. Adaryani, M.R.; Karami, A. Artificial bee colony algorithm for solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 2013, 53, 219–230. [CrossRef]
16. Roy, R.; Jadhav, H.T. Optimal power flow solution of power system incorporating stochastic wind power using Gbest guided
artificial bee colony algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 64, 562–578. [CrossRef]
17. Shabanpour-Haghighi, A.; Seifi, A.R.; Niknam, T. A modified teaching-learning based optimization for multi-objective optimal
power flow problem. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77, 597–607. [CrossRef]
18. Ghasemi, M.; Ghavidel, S.; Gitizadeh, M.; Akbari, E. An improved teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm using Levy
mutation strategy for non-smooth optimal power flow. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 65, 375–384. [CrossRef]
19. Kumar, A.R.; Premalatha, L. Optimal power flow for a deregulated power system using adaptive real coded biogeography-based
optimization. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 73, 393–399. [CrossRef]
20. Biswas, P.P.; Suganthan, P.N.; Mallipeddi, R.; Amaratunga, G.A.J. Optimal power flow solutions using differential evolution
algorithm integrated with effective constraint handling techniques. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2018, 68, 81–100. [CrossRef]
21. Warid, W.; Hizam, H.; Mariun, N.; Abdul-Wahab, N.I. Optimal Power Flow Using the Jaya Algorithm. Energies 2016, 9, 678.
[CrossRef]
22. Chen, G.G.; Lu, Z.M.; Zhang, Z.Z. Improved Krill Herd Algorithm with Novel Constraint Handling Method for Solving Optimal
Power Flow Problems. Energies 2018, 11, 76. [CrossRef]
23. Rubinstein, R. The Cross-Entropy Method for Combinatorial and Continuous Optimization. Methodol. Comput. Appl. 1999, 1,
127–190. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, G.B.; Zha, Y.X.; Wu, T.; Qiu, J.; Peng, J.C.; Xu, G. Cross entropy optimization based on decomposition for multi-objective
economic emission dispatch considering renewable energy generation uncertainties. Energy 2020, 193, 982–997. [CrossRef]
25. Selvakumar, A.I. Enhanced cross-entropy method for dynamic economic dispatch with valve-point effects. Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 2011, 33, 783–790. [CrossRef]
26. Carvalho, L.D.; da Silva, A.M.L.; Miranda, V. Security-Constrained Optimal Power Flow via Cross-Entropy Method. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2018, 33, 6621–6629. [CrossRef]
27. Sarda, J.; Pandya, K.; Lee, K.Y. Dynamic optimal power flow with cross entropy covariance matrix adaption evolutionary strategy
for systems with electric vehicles and renewable generators. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 10869–10881. [CrossRef]
28. Marcelino, C.G.; Perez-Aracil, J.; Wanner, E.F.; Jimenez-Fernandez, S.; Leite, G.M.C.; Salcedo-Sanz, S. Cross-entropy boosted
CRO-SL for optimal power flow in smart grids. Soft Comput. 2023, 27, 6549–6572. [CrossRef]
29. Hui, K.P.; Bean, N.; Kraetzl, M.; Kroese, D.P. The Cross-Entropy Method for Network Reliability Estimation. Ann. Oper. Res. 2005,
134, 101–118. [CrossRef]
30. Beruvides, G.; Quiza, R.; Haber Guerra, R.E. Multi-objective optimization based on an improved cross-entropy method. A case
study of a micro-scale manufacturing process. Inf. Sci. 2015, 334–335, 161–173. [CrossRef]
31. Tang, Q.; Ma, L.; Zhao, D.; Lei, J.; Wang, Y. A multi-objective cross-entropy optimization algorithm and its application in
high-speed train lateral control. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 115, 108151. [CrossRef]
32. Tessema, B.; Yen, G.G. A self adaptive penalty function based algorithm for constrained optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6–21 July 2006; pp. 246–253.
33. Mallipeddi, R.; Jeyadevi, S.; Suganthan, P.N.; Baskar, S. Efficient constraint handling for optimal reactive power dispatch problems.
Swarm Evol. Comput. 2012, 5, 28–36. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 5466 33 of 33

34. Deb, K. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput. Method Appl. Mech. Eng. 2000, 186, 311–338.
[CrossRef]
35. Kessel, P.; Glavitsch, H. Estimating the Voltage Stability of a Power System. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 1986, 186, 346–354. [CrossRef]
36. Mohamed, A.A.; Mohamed, Y.S.; El-Gaafary, A.A.M.; Hemeida, A.M. Optimal power flow using moth swarm algorithm. Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 2017, 142, 190–206. [CrossRef]
37. Bouchekara, H.R.E.H.; Chaib, A.E.; Abido, M.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A. Optimal power flow using an Improved Colliding Bodies
Optimization algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 42, 119–131. [CrossRef]
38. Kroese, D.P.; Porotsky, S.; Rubinstein, R.Y. The cross-entropy method for continuous multi-extremal optimization. Methodol.
Comput. Appl. 2006, 8, 383–407. [CrossRef]
39. De Boer, P.T.; Kroese, D.P.; Mannor, S.; Rubinstein, R.Y. A tutorial on the cross-entropy method. Ann. Oper. Res. 2005, 134, 19–67.
[CrossRef]
40. Rubinstein, R.Y. Optimization of computer simulation models with rare events. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1997, 99, 89–112. [CrossRef]
41. Zhang, Y. Research on Load Dispatch of Power Systems Based on Improved Cross-Entroy Methods. Master’s Thesis, Shanghai
University, Shanghai, China, 2019.
42. Caponetto, R.; Fortuna, L.; Fazzino, S.; Xibilia, M.G. Chaotic sequences to improve the performance of evolutionary algorithms.
IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2003, 7, 289–304. [CrossRef]
43. Zimmerman, R.D.; Murillo-Sánchez, C.E.; Thomas, R.J. MATPOWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning, and Analysis Tools for
Power Systems Research and Education. IEEE Trans. Power Appl. Syst. 2011, 26, 12–19. [CrossRef]
44. Li, S.J.; Gong, W.Y.; Hu, C.Y.; Yan, X.S.; Wang, L.; Gu, Q. Adaptive constraint differential evolution for optimal power flow. Energy
2021, 235, 121362. [CrossRef]
45. Daryani, N.; Hagh, M.T.; Teimourzadeh, S. Adaptive group search optimization algorithm for multi-objective optimal power flow
problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 38, 1012–1024. [CrossRef]
46. Khunkitti, S.; Siritaratiwat, A.; Premrudeepreechacharn, S. Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Problems Based on Slime Mould
Algorithm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7448. [CrossRef]
47. Bouchekara, H.; Abido, M.A.; Boucherma, M. Optimal power flow using Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization technique.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2014, 114, 49–59. [CrossRef]
48. Abaci, K.; Yamacli, V. Differential search algorithm for solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem. Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 2016, 79, 1–10. [CrossRef]
49. Kumari, M.S.; Maheswarapu, S. Enhanced Genetic Algorithm based computation technique for multi-objective Optimal Power
Flow solution. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2010, 32, 736–742. [CrossRef]
50. Reddy, S.S.; Bijwe, P.R.; Abhyankar, A.R. Faster evolutionary algorithm based optimal power flow using incremental variables.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2014, 54, 198–210. [CrossRef]
51. Warid, W. Optimal power flow using the AMTPG-Jaya algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 91, 106252. [CrossRef]
52. Ghasemi, M.; Ghavidel, S.; Ghanbarian, M.M.; Gharibzadeh, M.; Vahed, A.A. Multi-objective optimal power flow considering the
cost, emission, voltage deviation and power losses using multi-objective modified imperialist competitive algorithm. Energy 2014,
78, 276–289. [CrossRef]
53. Duman, S.; Guvenc, U.; Sonmez, Y.; Yorukeren, N. Optimal power flow using gravitational search algorithm. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2012, 59, 86–95. [CrossRef]
54. Shaheen, A.M.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Farrag, S.M. Solving multi-objective optimal power flow problem via forced initialised
differential evolution algorithm. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2016, 10, 1634–1647. [CrossRef]
55. Roy, P.K.; Paul, C. Optimal power flow using krill herd algorithm. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. 2015, 25, 1397–1419. [CrossRef]
56. Braund, M. Security constrained optimal power flow solution using new adaptive partitioning flower pollination algorithm.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 46, 501–522.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.