1

An Efficient Multi-objective Meta-heuristic Method

for Distribution Network Expansion Planning
Hiroyuki Mori, Member, IEEE, Yoshinori Yamada, Student Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper proposes a new method for distribution

network expansion planning. The proposed method is based on
SPEA2 (Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2) of multiobjective meta-heuristics. As power systems are deregulated, the
power market becomes more competitive. Hence, the cost
minimization has been recognized as one of the most important
factors in distribution systems. Apart from the cost minimization,
the network loss minimization and the power quality are also
important. This paper focuses on distribution network expansion
planning under new environment with distribution generations
(DG). It needs to deal with multi-objective optimization. In this
paper, SPEA2 that is effective for evaluating the Pareto solution
set is used to solve the multi-objective network expansion
planning problem. It has advantage in finding out a set of Pareto
solutions with the strategies of using both the archives and the
evaluated solution set. The proposed method is successfully
applied to the 69-node distribution system with DG units.
Index TermsMulti-objective optimization, Distribution
network expansion planning, Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm 2
I.

INTRODUCTION

n recent years, the liberalization of power systems has been

widely spread in the world. The players of the power
market are interested in minimizing the cost while keeping the
security conditions under new environment. This paper
focuses on distribution network expansion planning since it
needs more sophisticated methods for improving the power
system conditions from a standpoint of the cost reduction. It
aims at optimizing the network loss, the installation cost and
the power quality while satisfying the constraints on the
voltage magnitude bounds, the capacity limitation of feeders
and distribution substations, and the radial network conditions.
Thus, the formulation may be expressed as a complicated
combinational optimization problem of the components such
as feeders and distribution substations. In addition, this paper
takes distributed generation (DG) units into account to reflect
new environment in distribution automation. They play an
important role to smooth distribution network expansion
planning. Thus, the degree of the complexity increases in
deregulated distribution networks. The conventional methods
on the multi-objective optimization problem have used the
transformation of a multi-objective optimization problem into
a single objective one [1]. As alternative methods, the Manuscript received April 14, 2007.
H. Mori and Y. Yamada are with the Dept. of Electronics & Bioinformatics,
Meiji University, 1-1-1 Higashimita, Tama-ku, Kawasaki, 214-8571. Japan.
(e-mail: hmori@isc.meiji.ac.jp).

constraint method, the min-max methods, etc. have been

applied to the multi-objective optimization problem [2]. In
other words, the conventional methods transform the multiobjective optimization problem into the single-objective
problem in a way that the scalrization is carried. Specifically,
they solve the problem with linear programming, the branchexchange method, the branch bound method, etc. [3]-[7].
However, they have a drawback that they easily get stuck in a
local minimum or that it needs more computational time. In
recent years, meta-heuristics is very attractive in a sense that it
focuses on evaluating a globally optimal solution or its high
approximate solutions. That brings about remarkable cost
reduction. As meta-heuristics, SA (Simulated Annealing), GA
(Genetic Algorithm), TS (Tabu Search), etc. are well-known
in the engineering fields [8]-[10]. Among them, TS gives
better results in distribution network expansion planning [11].
As a result, multi-objective optimization methods were
proposed with the scalarization method. However, they still
have the following drawbacks:
1) A priori knowledge is necessary in dealing with the
relative importance between the objective functions and
the transformation of the boundary of the objective
function into the constraint.
2) Only one compromise solution is given for given
parameters. Alternative solutions are not allowed in the
network expansion planning.
3) It is hard to evaluate the trade-off between the objective
functions.
4) The search process is very complicated due to the nonconvex structure of search space.
Although the scalarizarion method is good at evaluating a
more accurate solution for given parameters, it lacks the
flexibility in a sense that alternative solutions are not
evaluated. In other words, it is preferable that the network
planners are allowed to select the optimal solution from a set
of the Pareto solutions and meet the degree of their
satisfaction. In practice, the scalarization method can evaluate
the Pareto solution set with the iterative process, but the
efficiency is not so good. Therefore, multi-objective metaheuristics that focuses on evaluating the Pareto solution set is
more attractive in a way that the multi-objective optimization
problem is solved efficiently. It is an extension of metaheuristics for evaluating a single solution in a way that the
solution search is performed for the Pareto solutions rather
than a single one. As the multi-objective meta-heuristics for
the Pareto solutions, SPEA2 (Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm 2) is well-known for good performance. It is based

2
on SPEA that makes use of two sets: regular population and
archive (external set). The former plays a key role to generate
new solutions. The latter keeps better solutions with the
criterion of the importance and the diversity in multi-objective
optimization. The main difference between SPEA and SPEA2
is that SPEA2 has advantage to link archive with the
population efficiently. Thus, SPEA2 has better performance to
keep the diversity of solution candidates and keep the Pareto
solutions. In this paper, a SPEA2-based method is proposed
for distribution network expansion planning. The proposed
method is useful for evaluating the Pareto solution set with
high accuracy. The proposed method is compared with other
methods such as NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II of multiobjective meta-heuristics. The proposed method is
successfully applied to the 69-node distribution network with
DG units.
II. DISTRIBUTION NETWORK EXPANSION PLANNING
This section outlines distribution network expansion
planning. In this paper, the network loss minimization, the
voltage security enhancement and the installation cost are
optimized to determine the location of feeders and substations.
The mathematical formulation results in a combinational
optimization problem. To reflect the current status of
distribution system, distributed generation (DG) units are
introduced to distribution network expansion planning as new
facilities under new environment. Specifically, the
formulation of distribution network expansion planning may
be written as
Cost functions:
nf

ns

nd

i =1

j =1

k =1

f1 = c fi x fi + csj xsj + cdk xdk ..........................................(1)

f 2 = Ploss .............................................................................(2)
nn

2
f 3 = (Vbase Vi ) ..............................................................(3)
i =1

Constraints:
y = k (z ) ..............................................................................(4)
Vi Vi Vi

Ps j Ps j

.........................................................................(6)

.....................................................................(5)

Pij Tij ..............................................................................(7)

where
f1, f2, f3: cost function to be optimized
nf: number of feeder candidates
cfi: installation cost of feeder i
xfi: variable denoting whether feeder i is installed or not,
1 (installed )
x fi =
0 (not installed )

ns: number of distribution substation candidates

csj: installation cost of distribution substation j
xsj: variable denoting whether distribution substation j is installed or not
nd: number of DG units
cdk: installation cost of DG unit k
xdk: variable denoting whether DG unit k is installed or not
Ploss: network active power loss
nn: number of nodes
Vbase: reference voltage

Vi: voltage magnitude at Node i

y: nodal specified value of power flow calculation
k(): power flow equation
z: power flow solution
Vim (ViM): lower (upper) bound of nodal voltage magnitude at Node i
Psj: capacity of substation j
PsjM: upper bound of Psj
|Pij|: absolute value of active line flow between Nodes i and j
Tij: limitation of |Pij|

As the constraints, this paper considers the power flow

equation, the nodal voltage magnitude boundary, the radial
network condition, the limitation of line flows and the upper
bound of substation capacity. In this paper, three objective
functions (1)-(3) are optimized in a sense of multi-objective
optimization while satisfying the constraints.
III. CONTROLLED NSGA-II
In this section, Controlled NSGA-II of multi-objective
meta-heuristics is outlined. The method was based on NSGAII developed by Deb, et al. The difference between Controlled
NSGA-II and NSGA-II is that the reproduction of solution
candidate at the next generation is different in a way that the
diversity of solution candidates is higher in the Controlled
NSGA-II. Also, NSGA-II stems from NSGA developed by
Deb, et al. NSGA-II is different from NSGA in terms of the
fitness and the reproduction.
3.1 Strategies of NSGA-II
As the multi-objective optimization method, NSGA-II has
some functions to improve the solutions. It has the following
strategies:
1) fast non-dominated sort strategy
2) diversity strategy
3) elite strategy
The fast non-dominated sort is used to evaluate the solution
dominance and classify the solution into Front that
corresponds to the cluster with the same solution dominance.
In other words, it is just like a contour of the fitness. Fast nondominated sort is useful for evaluating, clusting, storing the
Pareto solutions. Fig.1 (a) shows the concept of Front in a
two-objective minimization problem, where two objective
functions f1 and f2 are considered and Front 1 is the closest to
the optimal surface that is the most important. The highest
fitness is assigned to Front 1. As shown in Fig. 1 (a), the
solution fitness decreases with the number of Fronts. The
crowding distance is introduced into NSGA-II as the fitness
measure to make a comparison of solutions in the same Front.
Fig. 1 (b) shows the concept of the crowding distance that
f2

f2
1

Front 3
j 1

Front 2

cuboid

j
j +1

Front 1

(a)

f1

Fig. 1. Strategy concept of NSGA-II.

(b)

M1

f1

3
plays a role to store the diversity of the solution set. The
crowding distance is calculated by the sorted neighboring
solutions. Now, let us look at Solution j. The evaluation of
Solution j is obtained by Solutions j - 1 and j + 1. As the
crowding distance of the solution becomes larger, the solution
becomes more important. The crowding distance allows the
user to evaluate the solution diversity and maintain the
diversity of the solutions. The crowding distance is a nonparametric useful technique. The algorithm of NSGA-II may
be described as follows: First, the integrated set of the parents
and the offspring is created. The top-ranking solution set at
the next generation is stored after classifying the solution set
with the fast non-dominated sort. The constant numbers of the
solutions are stored at each generation. As a result, the
solutions with small crowding distance are exceeded form the
solution set to keep the constant number of solutions in a case
where the size of the solution set exceeds a certain value. The
procedure processes a certain size of solutions. The solution
set at the next generation is created by applying the genetic
operators to the solutions in the integrated sets.
3.2 Controlled NSGA-II
Controlled NSGA-II is the extension of NSGA-II in a way
that the reproductions of the next generation solution
candidates are considered. It overcomes the drawback that
NSGA-II does not appropriately improve the solution
candidates. Namely, Controlled NSGA-II gives better solution
candidates by introducing the diversity into solution search in
NSGA-II. The number of population as each Front stored at
the next generation may be written as
ni = rni 1

where
ni : the number of population allowed at Front i
r : decreasing rate (r < 1)
Fig. 2 shows the concept of Controlled NSGA-II where it
should be noted that Controlled NSGA-II considers all the
offspring although NSGA-II maintains a part of better
offspring. The solutions are preserved in Front in creating the
next generation solution set from the integrated solution set.
The priority of storing the solutions in Front is determined by
the crowding distance. Although the number of stored
solutions at the lower-ranked Front decreases exponentially, a
few numbers of them is stored.
Rt

Pt
Non-dominated
Sorting
F1

F2

Qt

compare with solution i and j

ik < kj
then
delete solution i

i
dominating space

j
i

dominated space
(a)

f1

(b)

f1

Fig. 3 Strategies concept of SPEA2

IV. SPEA2
4.1 Strategies of SPEA2
This section describes SPEA2 that is one of multi-objective
meta-heuristic methods. SPEA2 is the modified method of
SPEA that makes use of the archive and a set of the evaluated
solutions. In order to evaluate better solutions, SPEA2 has the
following strategies:
1) The fitness is determined to include the priority of the
Pareto solutions.
2) The environment selection is carried out to maintain the
non-dominated solutions and the diversity of the
solution candidates.
The calculation of the fitness for SPEA2 considers both
dominating and dominated solutions. Suppose a set of
solutions Pt and archive Qt. Let us consider individual i in Pt
and Qt. The strength value means the number of individuals
that are dominated by individual i. As an index, the strength
value S(i) is defined as
S (i ) = { j | j Pt + Qt i f j} ................................................ (8)

where
| |: cardinality of a set
+: sum of sets
f : Pareto dependency

Based on S(i), raw fitness R(i) may be written as

R (i ) =

S ( j ) .................................................................. (9)

jPt +Qt , j fi

Fig. 3 (a) shows that S(i) for individual i is equal to 4. The

fitness for individual i results in the sum of S(i). To
distinguish between the individuals with the same fitness,
density information is employed. It is evaluated by the
distance of the k-th nearest individual. Specifically, the
distance function may be written as
D (i ) =

ik + 2

................................................................... (10)

where

F3

ik : distance between individual i and k-th nearest individual

Eventually, the fitness of individual i may be written as

Crowding Distance
Sorting
Pt+1

f2

f2

F (i ) = R(i ) + D(i ) ............................................................... (11)

Genetic Operation

Fig. 2. Concept of Controlled NSGA-II

The diversity solution is calculated by the additional

information. Thus, SPEA2 realizes the dominance of Pareto
solutions and the diversity of them.

non-dominated
solution set

Qt

Qt +1

non-dominated
solution set

Qt

Qt +1

combine

combine
truncation method
dominated
solution set

Pt

to individuals i and j. The individual with smaller distance is

excluded to. The process is repeated until the number of
individuals in the archive reaches a certain number. That
constructs the solution set with solutions uniformly scattered.
Fig. 4 shows the concept of the next generation selection,
where Figs. 4 (a) and (b) give cases with smaller and larger
size than the constant archive size. Solution search is carried
out to construct the next generation set by applying genetic
operations to the archive.

dominated
solution set

Pt

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4 Concept of next generation selection.

V. SIMULATION

4.2 Algorithm of SPEA2

The algorithm of SPEA2 may be summarized as follows:

5.1 Simulation Conditions

The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated
in a sample system. A comparison is made between the
proposed method and other methods such as NSGA-II and
Controlled NSGA-II. The following conditions are employed:

Step 1: Set the initial conditions(P0, Q0, t = 0)

Step 2: Calculate the fitness for Pt and Qt
Step 3: Copy all the Pareto solutions in Pt and Qt to Qt+1.If
the size of Qt+1 is over or under archive size NQ,
make the size of Qt+1 NQ
Step 4: Stop if the termination conditions are satisfied.
Otherwise, go to Step 5
Step 5: Carry out the binary tournament strategy to create
the mating pool with Qt+1
Step 6: Apply the crossover and the mutation to the mating
pool and construct the next generation solution set
Pt+1
Step 7: Update t = t + 1 and return to Step 2

1) The Proposed method is applied to the 69-node

distribution network with 7 distribution substation
candidates, 15 DG unit candidates and 115 new feeder
candidates. The candidates of substations (Nodes 100,
200,, 700), distributed generators (Nodes 70, 71,,84)
and new feeders as well as the load value are determined
in advance.
2) The installation cost of substations and distributed
generators are set to be 350 and 50, respectively. The cost
of feeders, the resistances and the reactance are
proportional to the length of feeders. It is assumed that the
candidates of the substations and the distributed
generators have one and two neighboring nodes to be
connected, respectively. Also, a distributed generator has
200kW output with power factor 0.75. The feeder
candidates are expressed in binary number. The substation
and the distributed generators are also represented in
binary number. The number of combinations to be solved
results in 5.14 1061.

Thus, the raw fitness allows the algorithm to judge which

solution is better and the additional density information helps
to judge the solution diversity. Also, SPEA2 uses the archive
truncation method to reduce the number of the Pareto
solutions to a constant number. The method is based on the
density information used in calculating the fitness of the
individual. Fig. 3 (b) gives the concept of the truncation
method, where individuals i and j are selected in the archive.
A comparison is made between the k-th neighbor individuals
200
71

31
30

57

29
48

49

72 7
6

11
10

12

70
37

38

16

18

300

21

24

69

25

81

80

67
42

82

46
500

43

73

20

22
68

41

19

17

45
40

100

65

66

52

39

64
23

13

51

36

62

15
14

74

59

84

63

61

77

53
9

60

58

56

55

54

50

47
3

600

79

35

75

28

400

34

33

32

44

26

27
83

78

76
: Installed substation

: DG candidate

: Installed feeder

: Substation candidate

: Load bus

: Feeder candidate

Fig. 5. 69-node distribution system

700

f2
: Search solution
: Preto optimal
solution

f1
Fig. 6 Concept of D1R

3) As the multi-objective functions, this paper minimized

network loss, the installation cost of new equipments and
the voltage deviation from the specified voltage. A
comparison between the proposed and the conventional
methods such as Controlled NSGA-II and NSGA-II is
made to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
method. The solution set consists of 100 and 200
solutions. The parameters are determined through the
preliminarily simulation.
4) To evaluate the quality of the solutions for multi-objective
optimization, this paper makes use of D1R that measures
the quality and the good spread of population in multiobjective optimization. Suppose solution set x(p1), x(p2),...,
x(pnp) that is closest to the Pareto solution set where x(pi)
means the solution closest to the Pareto solution pi. D1R
of x for the Pareto solution set p may be written as
D1R({x}{
, p}) =

np
i =1

f ( pi ) f (x ( pi ))
np

because the cost functions have the common independent

relationship between the variables and the intermediate areas
have a variety of network configurations. According to the use
of the relationship, the network planners are allowed to select
the network configuration that considers the trade-off.
Fig. 8 shows D1R for each method for 100 and 200
individuals. SPEA2 reduced D1R by 10.8% and 6.8% for
NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II, respectively in case of 100
individuals. SPEA2 was more effective in case of 200
individuals. It succeeded in reducing D1R by 25.1% and
13.8% for NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II, respectively.
That is because NSGA-II has a drawback in evaluating the
crowding distance that corresponds to the density of the
individuals. It gives errors on D1R since the individual to be
evaluated is not used in calculating crowding distance. In
addition, it often encounters a case where the solution set is
not improved for lack of the solution diversity in search

f2

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0

200

400

1000

1200

14000

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.35

0.4

f3

0 .0 0 5 8 3
0 .0 0 5 5 2

0 .0 0 6

where

0 .0 0 5 2

|| ||: Euclidean norm

0 .0 0 5

f : normalized cost function

0 .0 0 4
D 1R

np: number of Pareto solutions

0 .0 0 2 7 3

0 .0 0 3

0 .0 0 2 3 5
0 .0 0 2 0 5

100
200

0 .0 0 2

0 .0 0 1

N S G A - II

C o n tro lle d

SPEA 2

Fig. 8. D1R for each method

822

900
800

659

700
Com puta ti ona l ti me [s ]

5.2 Simulation Results

Fig. 7 shows the simulation results for SPEA2 for 100
individuals. The use of multi-objective meta-heuristics allows
the user to understand the trade-off relationship of the cost
functions. It can be observed that the Pareto solutions create
the curve near the boundary although the Pareto solutions for
three cost functions construct the surface. Also, the
intermediate areas create the surface to some extent. That is

800

0.3

Fig. 7. Simulation result for SPEA2

............................. (12)

Fig. 6 shows the concept of D1R. It should be noted that D1R

becomes smaller as the evaluated solutions approach the
Pareto one and the solutions are uniformly distributed. The
evaluation of D1R needs the Pareto solution set in advance.
However, it is hard to evaluate all the Pareto solutions in the
multi-objective problem. Thus, Evolutionary Algorithm (EA)
with the large solution set is used to find out the Pareto
solutions with sufficient time. In this paper, SPEA2 is
employed as EA. In the same way, this paper defines the
Pareto solutions with EA.

600
f1

0.25

607

600
458

500
400

333

332

300
200
100
0

N SGA -II

C ontrol l e d

S PE A 2

Fig. 9 Computational time for each method

100
200

6
process. Since Controlled NSGA-II introduces the strategy
into NSGA-II to escape from the fa1ilure in solution set
improvement, it gives better results than NSGA-II. However,
it provides errors on D1R due to the use of the same index.
SPEA2 is different from NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II in
a way of calculating the density of solutions. That brings
about more accurate results.
Fig. 9 shows computational time for 100 and 200
individuals, respectively. It can be seen that the order of
superiority for case of 100 individuals has the same trend as
that for case of 200 ones. Namely, NSGA-II is faster than
Controlled NSGA-II and SPEA2. SPEA2 is not so fast as
NSGA-II and faster than Controlled NSGA-II. SPEA2
reduced computational time of Controlled NSGA-II by 27.5%
and 19.1% for 100 and 200 individuals, respectively. Thus, it
can be seen that SPEA2 was faster than Controlled NSGA-II
that is superior to NSGA-II in terms of solution quality. The
simulation results have shown that SPEA2 is superior to
NSGA-II and Controlled NSGA-II in terms of solution
accuracy and computational time.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has proposed an efficient multi-objective metaheuristic method for distribution network expansion planning.
The optimal configuration of the feeders, the substations and
DG units were determined by the multi-objective optimization.
The proposed method made use of SPEA2 that was effective
for evaluating the Pareto solution set in the multi-objective
optimization problem. The method allows the planners to
understand the trade-off relationship of the cost functions. The
proposed method was tested in the 69-node distribution
network with 14 DG units. It was compared with NSGA-II
and Controlled NSGA-II of the multi-objective optimization
technique. SPEA2 succeeded in reducing the D1R of the
evaluation index by 10.8% and 6.8% for NSGA-II and
Controlled NSGA-II, respectively. The simulation results have
shown that SPEA2 outperformed other methods in terms of
solution quality and computational time.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

H. Mori and Y. Iimura, An Improved Tabu Search Approach to

Distribution Network Expansion Planning Under New Environment,
Proc. of IEEE PES POWERCON 2004, Singapore, Oct. 2004.
H. Mori and Y. Yamada, Two-Layered Neighborhood Tabu Search for
Distribution Network Expansion Planning, Proc. of IEEE ISCAS2006,
pp. 3706-3709, Island of Kos, Greece, May 2006.
K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh, M. Kitagawa, and K. Yamanaka, New
Approximate Optimization Method for Distribution System Planning,
IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 126-132 Feb. 1990.
S. Bhowmik, S. K. Goswami and P. K. Bhattachrjee, A New
Distribution System Planning Through Reliability Evaluation
Technique, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 169179, June 2000.
H. Kuwabara and K. Nara, Multi-year and Multi-state Distribution
System Expansion Planning by Multi-state Branch Exchange, IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 12, pp. 457-463, Jan. 1997.
K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh. M. Kitagawa and K. Yamanaka, Algorithm
for Expansion Planning in Distribution Systems Taking Faults into
Consideration, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 324-330,
Feb. 1994.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

J. T. Boardman and C. C. Meckiff, A Branch and Bound Formulation to

an Electricity Distribution Planning Problems, IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., Vol. PAS-104, pp. 2112-2118, Aug. 1985.
S. Jonavithula and R. Billinton, Minimum Cost Analysis of Feeder
Routing in Distribution System Planning, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 1935-1940, Oct.1996.
V. Miranda, J. V. Ranito, and L. M. Proenca, Genetic Algorithm in
Optimal Multistage Distribution Network Planning, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1927-1933 Nov. 1994.
V. Miranda and L. M. Proenca, A General Methodology for
Distribution Planning under Uncertainty, including Genetic Algorithms
and Fuzzy Models on a Multi-criteria Environment, in IEEE/KTH
Stockholm Power Tech Conf., Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 833-837, June
1995.
K. Aoki, K. Nara, T. Satoh, M. Kitagawa, and K. Yamanaka, A New
Feeder Route Determination Algorithm by Dijkstra Method and Tabu
Search, Proc. of Intelligent System Application to Power System
(ISAP97), pp. 448-452, Seoul, Korea, July 1996.
A. Goicoechea, D. R. Hansen and L. Duckstein, Multi-objective
Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications, New
York: Wiley, 1982.
C. M. Fonseca and P. J. Fleming, Genetic Algorithms for
Multiobjective
Optimization:
Formulation,
Discussion,
and
Generalization, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416-423, 1993.
N. Srinivas and K. Deb, Multiobjective Optimization Using
Nondiminated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms, Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 221-248, 1994.
K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan, A Fast Elitist Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization:
NSGA-II, Proceeding of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI,
pp. 849-858, 2000.
K. Deb and T. Goel, Controlled Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm for Better Convergence, Proceeding of the First International
Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, pp.42-50,
2001.
E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A
Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach, IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 257-271,
1999.
E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele, SPEA2: Improving the
Performance of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm, Technical
Report 103, Computer Engineering and Communication Networks Lac
(TIK), Swis Federal institute of Technology (ETH ) Zurich, 2001.
H. D. Chiang, A Decoupled Load Flow Method for Distribution Power
Networks : Algorithms, Analysis and Convergence Study, Electrical
Power Energy Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 130-138, June 1991.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Hiroyuki Mori was born in Tokyo, Japan on November, 1954. He received
the B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees all in Electrical Engineering from Waseda
University, Tokyo, Japan in 1979, 1981, and 1985, respectively. From 1984 to
1985 he was a Research Associate at Waseda University. In 1985 he joined
the faculty in Electrical Engineering at Meiji University, Kawasaki, Japan.
From 1994 to 1995, he was a Visiting Associate Professor of School of
Electrical Engineering at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. He is
currently a Professor of Dept. of Electronics and Bioinformatics at Meiji
University. Since 2001, He has been the ISAP Board Director. His research
interests include voltage instability, power flows, state estimation, load
forecasting, system identification, fuzzy, meta-heuristics and artificial neural
networks. Dr. Mori is a member of AAAI, ACM, INNS, SIAM and IEE of
Japan.
Yoshinori Yamada was born in Tokyo, Japan on January, 1984. He received
the B. Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from Meiji University, Kawasaki,
Japan in 2006. He is currently working for the M.Sc. degree. His research
interests are distribution system analysis and multi-objective meta-heuristics.
Mr. Yamada is a student member of IEEE and IEE of Japan.