Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc.

ROC(A)
Vol. 25, No. 1, 2001. pp. 53-62

Genetic Algorithms as a Reactive Power Source Dispatching Aid

for Voltage Security Enhancement
CHIH-WEN LIU*, CHEN-SUNG CHANG*, AND JOE-AIR JIANG**
*
Department of Electrical Engineering
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
**
Department of Electrical Engineering
Kuang-Wu Institute of Technology and Commerce
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

(Received March 13, 2000; Accepted May 12, 2000)

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an efficient computing algorithm for enhancing voltage security. The algorithm uses the
genetic algorithm (GA) to dispatch reactive power sources under various system conditions. GA aids the dispatching
of reactive power sources so as to maintain the specified security level. The reactive power sources used in the proposed
genetic algorithm are transformer tap changers, static capacitors, static Var compensators (SVCs) and generator terminal
voltages. The proposed method has been tested on an IEEE 30-bus power system, and successful results have been
obtained.

Key Words: voltage security indices, voltage security enhancement, genetic algorithms, phasor measurement unit

I. Introduction
In recent years, an instability problem, usually termed
voltage instability, has been observed and has been found to
be responsible for several major network collapses in different
countries (IEEE Publication, 1990; Taylor, 1994). This phe-
nomenon did not always occur in response to a contingency,
such as the loss of an important transmission line or a generator,
but rather in response to an unexpected rise in the load level,
sometimes in combination with inadequate reactive power
support at critical network buses.
A large amount of research has focused on voltage
instability or voltage collapse. Indeed, many researchers have
proposed voltage security margins which show how close the
current operating point of a power system is to the voltage
collapse point (Schlueter, 1998; Canizares and Alvarado, 1993;
Gao et al., 1992; Chebbo et al., 1992a; Lf et al., 1992; Van
Cutsem, 1991), which serves as an assessment of voltage
security. In addition to the identification of voltage security,
system operators are also interested in knowing how much
and where external reactive support is needed and located with
regard to both security and economics. Reactive power can
be dispatched effectively to maintain acceptable voltage levels
throughout the system and to reduce the overall real power
loss of the system. Therefore, many researchers have pointed
out that the security margin of power systems can be enlarged
to reduce the possibility of voltage collapse by providing a
sufficient amount of reactive power (Van Cutsem, 1991;
Ajjarapu et al., 1994; Chang and Huang, 1998; Begovic and
Phadke, 1992; Nanba et al., 1998; Chebbo et al., 1992b).
Specifically, Van Cutsem (1991) used the solution of a reactive
power optimization problem as the voltage security margins.
Ajjarapu et al. (1994) introduced a method for determining
the minimum amount of shunt reactive power support needed,
which indirectly maximizes real power transfer before voltage
collapse is encountered. Chang and Huang (1998) used
optimal multi-objective static Var compensator planning to
enhance voltage stability. Begovic and Phadke (1992) used
sensitivity analysis to control voltage security. Nanba et al.
(1998) proposed a control method for improving voltage
security based on the concept of the voltage instability prox-
imity index. In addition, Chebbo et al. (1992b) described a
linear reactive power dispatch algorithm to reduce the risk of
voltage collapse.
The system operators usually apply proper operations
to controllers to enhance voltage security when the power
network has voltage instability or shows vulnerability to voltage
collapse. Due to mismatch problems between the searched
optimal or near optimal control decisions and practicable
dispatches under these limitations, such as placement,
expenditure, supplementary instruments etc., it is necessary
that multi-solutions be selected by operators to enhance voltage
security. If we use the traditional optimal approaches, which
are the linear (Hegdt and Grady, 1983), nonlinear (Billiington
and Sachdev, 1983), mixed integer programming (Aoki et al.,
1988), and decomposition (Mangooli et al., 1993) methods,

53
 C.W. Liu et al.
to obtain optimal solutions, then the only optimal solution is
found, and dispatch selection is limited. Furthermore, some
of these conventional optimal methods, such as the Newton
method, Broydens method, and the gradient descent method,
are classified as greedy search techniques and often get stuck
at the local optimum rather than at the global optimum.
Recently, the stochastic optimization technique, known as
simulated annealing (SA), has been applied to many power
system constrained optimization problems (Chang and Huang,
1998; Hsiao et al., 1993). However, SA uses much CPU time
to find the global optimum. Therefore, SA is not suitable for
on-line use.
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are stochastic searching al-
gorithms that employ models of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
selection observed in nature. GAs have been applied to many
search and optimization applications (Goldberg, 1989; Lee et
al., 1995; Chen and Chang, 1995; Syswerda, 1989) due to their
flexibility and efficiency. The advantage of GAs is their use
of stochastic operators instead of deterministic rules to search
for fitness solutions. The searching process jumps randomly
from point to point, thus allowing escape from the local
optimum, in which other conventional optimization algorithms
might land, and it searches for many sub-optimum points in
parallel. Since GAs can provide many sub-optimal dispatch
solutions, they enable the operator to enhance voltage security
in a flexible and practical manner.
In this paper, we propose a voltage security enhancement
(VSE) scheme that consists of a security monitoring level and
a dispatching level, which are able to raise the voltage security
level by means of reactive power source dispatch. The genetic
algorithm is proposed in this paper to aid dispatching of
reactive power sources. Voltage security monitoring by means
of fuzzy hyper-rectangular composite neural networks
(FHRCNNs) has been developed by Liu et al. (1998). Therefore,
in this paper, we focus on reactive power dispatch using a
genetic algorithm to enhance voltage security. The VSE
scheme is shown in Fig. 1. This paper is organized as follows.
Section II explains the overall VSE scheme. The control
decisions generated by the genetic algorithm are described in
Section III. In Section IV, we present simulation of the
proposed scheme on the IEEE 30-bus system. Finally, sum-
mary discussion and a conclusion are given in Section V.
II.Voltage Security Enhancement Scheme
Voltage security indices are alternative techniques for
the detection of collapse and insecurity points. These indices
are scalar variables that are continuously monitored to deter-
mine how close a system is to voltage collapse. Simple
examples of voltage security indices are the minimum singular
value and real eigenvalue of the power flow Jacobian matrix:
the closer these values are to zero, the closer the system is
to collapse. In this paper, we use five fuzzy linguistic variables
(i.e., Very Small (VS), Small (S), Medium (M), Large (L) and
54
Fig. 1. The VSE scheme.
Very Large (VL)) to specify the degree of the voltage security
margin of a power system. To quantify these linguistic
variables, an existing voltage security index is used to describe
the relative severity of each variable. Also, a numerical secure
value (NSV) is assigned to each of the five possibility levels:
the secure value for VL is 5, the secure value for L is 4, the
secure value for M is 3, the secure value for S is 2, and the
secure value for VS is 1.
The operating conditions of a power system are char-
acterized by a number, n, of variables; therefore, each operating
condition can be represented by an input vector of patterns
in the n-dimensional pattern space Rn. In this paper, we let
x = [x1, x2, ..., xn], which is acquired based on synchronized
phasor measurement units (PMUs), be an input vector of the
FHRCNNs. The magnitude of an output variable is employed
to indicate the level of voltage security, and power system
voltage security is divided into 5 levels according to the range
of the values of the voltage security indices. Take the minimum
singular value, sn, as an example: we have a very secure level
(sn VL), secure level (sn L), alert level (sn M), dangerous
level (sn S), and very dangerous level (sn VS). After
sufficient training, the synaptic of a trained FHRCNN with
hidden nodes can be utilized to extract the classification
knowledge, which is then represented by a set of IF-THEN
rules for voltage security monitoring, such as the following
fuzzy rules:
IF (x HR5 VL), THEN voltage security is at the
very secure level.
IF (x HR4 L), THEN voltage security is at the secure
level.
IF (x HR3 M), THEN voltage security is at the
alert level.
IF (x HR2 S), THEN voltage security is at the
dangerous level.
 Power System Voltage Security

IF (x HR1 VS), THEN voltage security is at the V min

i
max
V i V i i N, (8)
very dangerous level.
i j i,j
max
i, j N, (9)
Here, HRj represents an n-dimensional hyperrectangle defined
by mj1, Mj1 ... mjn, Mjn in Rn, j = 1, 2, ..., 5, where
mij, Mij are parameters determined after sufficient training. A P 2ij + Q 2ij S 2ij, max i, j N, (10)
detailed description of voltage security monitoring by means
of FHRCNN was given by Liu et al. (1998). where N is the set of the numbers of total buses.
If voltage security is neither very secure nor secure, then
the voltage security enhancement algorithm is triggered. The 3. Control Decisions Generated by Genetic Algo-
voltage security enhancement strategy is formulated as the rithms
following search problem:
The control strategy for VSE is formulated using the
{NSV} 4 (1) GA to maintain the specified security level. The controllers
x,u
in the proposed genetic algorithm are transformer tap changers,
subject to static capacitors, SVCs and generator terminal voltages. The
reason why we use genetic algorithms to make control de-
L(x, u) = 0, (2)
cisions is that genetic algorithms are different from conven-
G(x, u) 0, (3) tional optimization and search procedures in four ways:
(1) GAs work with a coding of the parameter set, not the
where NSV is the numerical secure value and is chosen as the parameters themselves.
objective function, x denotes the vector of state variables, and (2) GAs search from a population of points, not a single
u denotes the vector of control variables, which are the voltage point. The computation for each individual in the
magnitudes of all the generators, Vg, the ratios of the trans- population is independent of those for others. Therefore,
former tap changers, T, and the switched capacitor/reactor GAs have inherent parallel computation ability.
settings, . is the feasible set, which is determined by means (3) GAs only use fitness or objective function information
of power flow constraints L() and inequality constraints directly as a basis for the searching direction, not
G(). The inequality constraints belong to the following differentiation or other auxiliary knowledge. Gas,
categories: therefore, can deal with non-continuous, non-smooth
and non-differentiable functions. Gas offer an alter-
1. Control Variable Constraints native to other traditional methods for solving real-
world search and optimization problems.
The control variables constraints include (4) GAs use probabilistic transition rules, not deterministic
rules, so they can search a complicated and uncertain
V min max
g V g V g g N g, (4) area to find global optimal or near-optimal solutions.
Therefore, GAs are more flexible and robust than
T min
t
max
T t T t t N T, (5) conventional optimization and search procedures.
In this section, Eqs. (1) (3) are solved to obtain the
0 q ck q ck max control vector u using a genetic algorithm. In practical
k L, (6)
0 q lk q lk max , applications, the variables of problems are encoded into a finite
string corresponding to chromosomes of biological systems.
where Ng is the set of generator buses and NT is the set of Also, each string (chromosome) represents a possible solution
on-line tap changer (OLTC) transformers; qck and qlk are the to the problem being optimized, and these solutions are clas-
additional capacitive and inductive compensations at bus k; sified based on a fitness function, better fitness, corresponding
and L is the set of all candidate buses for VAR support. to better solutions.
Generation of the optimal control vector by a GA is
2. Operating Constraints explained in the following:

The system operating constraints consist of the available A. The Representation of Strings
range of active and reactive generated power, bounds on vol-
tage magnitudes, phase angle difference limits, line flow limits Each string (chromosome) represents a possible voltage
etc., which are shown as Eqs. (7) (10): security enhancement strategy, and each element (gene) rep-
resents a value of control variables. Therefore, the numerical
S min max
g S g S g g N g, (7) string in this paper is that shown in Fig. 2. The length of the

55

V1 V2 ... Vg T1 T2 ... Tt 1 2 ...
numerical string
Fig. 2. Representation of a numerical string of a GA.
string is equal to the total number of control variables. Usually,
the value of an element in the string is represented by a binary
bit. However, this paper proposes the use of a real number
string.
B. Fitness Function
In a genetic algorithm, a fitness function is a mapping
which determines the fitness of each string in the population.
The GA proceeds to evolve better-fitting strings, and the fitness
value is the only information available to the GA. The strings
with large fitness values offer better solutions to the problem
and have a higher probability of being selected. Therefore,
the adopted fitness function of the GA methodology for VSE
is a measure of how close a specific operating point is to
the point of voltage instability.
We will use a voltage security index as a fitness function
as an example. We will consider the power flow equation
and use the strong coupling relations between the reactive
power and voltage magnitude in a stressed power system; then
the relation between the changes in reactive injection and
voltage magnitude can be described as Q = JsV, where Js
= J4 J3J11J2. In addition, the singular value decomposition
(SVD) is applied to the matrix Js. That is, Js = LSRT =
n
L iS iR Ti , where L and R are n n orthonormal matrices,
i =1
S is a diagonal matrix, and Si is a singular value of matrix
Js with the order s1 s2 s3 ... sn 0. We know from
Lf et al. (1992) that the minimum singular value, Sn, of Js
can be used as a voltage security margin measure; that is, the
smaller the singular value is, the closer to voltage collapse
the operating point is. Thus, the minimum singular value, Sn,
is an indicator of proximity to the voltage security limit. Thus,
we can take Sn as the fitness function of GA. Since the GA
is basically an unconstrained search procedure in the original
problem domain, to incorporate the constraints into the ob-
jective function, any string that violates the constraints is
penalized by setting its fitness value to zero. In this manner,
the GA implicitly becomes a constrained search procedure.
C. The Three Genetic Operators of a GA
(1) The reproduction operator is a probabilistic selection
process in which strings are selected so as to produce
offspring (child) based on their fitness value (Sn). A
conventional method for this is called roulette wheel
selection and was described in detail by Goldberg
(1989). This ensures that the expected number of a
string will be in proportion to the strings fitness relative
C.W. Liu et al.
k to the rest of the population. Stings with higher fitness
values (Sn) have a higher probability of contributing
offspring and are simply copied into the next generation.
In this paper, we employ an elitist policy; that is,
the sting with the highest fitness value in the population
is directly copied into the next generation.
(2) The crossover operator recombines the extremely im-
portant features of two strings to make offspring (child)
strings. Not only do they inherit some important
characteristics from their parent strings, but they also
have a chance of getting closer to the optimal decisions.
Crossover is performed on two strings that are selected
from the population randomly at one time, its frequency
being controlled by a crossover probability, Pc. Cross-
over can occur at a single position (single crossover)
or at a number of different positions (multiple crossover).
In this paper, we adopt a uniform crossover technique,
which exchanges elements between the two selected
parent strings to create new offspring strings by means
of a random mask. In this manner, the elements are
swapped when the value of the random mask is 1.
On the contrary, the elements remain unchanged when
the value of the random mask is 0. Figure 3 illustrates
such a uniform crossover technique. Uniform cross-
over was first presented by Syswerda (1989), and its
main advantage is that the convergence speed is faster
than that in one-point crossover or two-point crossover.
(3) The mutation operator is a mean used to avoid losing
important information at a particular position in the
decisions. The mutation operator with small mutation
probability, Pm, is applied to all the elements (genes)
that are in each offspring (child). The mutation operator
of a GA for VSE is the element added or subtracted
by one step (scale) of regulating devices, such as the
load ratio of OLTCs, the excitation control of genera-
tors or VAR source installation whenever a mutation
occurs, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, we can escape
from the local optimal solution and search for the
Fig. 3. The uniform crossover operator.
56
 Power System Voltage Security
optimal or near-optimal control decisions of VSE using
mutation skills. After mutation, the new generation
is complete, and the procedure begins again with fitness
evaluation of the population.
IV. Numerical Results
The IEEE 30-bus system with PMUs (shown in Fig. 5)
was used to test the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm
for VSE. The test system used in this study has six generation
buses (buses 1, 2, 5, 8, 11 and 13), 21 load buses, 4 OLTC
transformers (branches T1(6, 9), T2(6, 10), T3(4, 12) and T4
(28, 27)) and 37 transmission lines. The test system, system
parameters and initial buses data were discussed in detail by
Freris and Sasson (1968).
Fast calculations of the minimum singular value and
corresponding singular vector based on Lf et al. (1992) were
adopted to prepare the training patterns and test patterns. One
Fig. 4. The mutation operator.
Fig. 5. IEEE 30-bus system with 10 PMUs.
57
Fig. 6. The voltage security index for the IEEE 30-bus system.
result of fast calculations of the minimum singular value
(voltage security index) from light load to critical load is shown
in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, the jumps in the numerical value of the
voltage security index occur because PV-buses change into
PQ-buses when limits for reactive power generation are hit,
reflecting the importance of reactive power resources, which
if inadequate can contribute to voltage security problems in
power systems. The simulation program was developed on
a SUN workstation using C++. Ten installed PMUs were
simulated on buses 30, 26, 29, 25, 27, 24, 23, 19, 18 and 20
based on weak bus ranking of the test system under heavy
load conditions (shown in Table 1).
In this paper, the voltage security levels are classified
into 5 levels according to the magnitude of the minimum
singular value, Sn: very secure level (Sn 0.4450), secure level
(0.4449 Sn 0.3600), alert level (0.3599 Sn 0.1950),
dangerous level (0.1949 Sn 0.1000), and very dangerous
level (0.0999 Sn 0.0). The ranges of the voltage security
index values that are dependent on the studied power system
under various operating conditions are statistically determined.
It should be emphasized that the range of the magnitude of
Sn for each of the security levels selected above is set so as
to ease presentation of the numerical tests.
Four tested cases were considered in VSE under heavy
load and credible contingency conditions. In these tests, the
bus voltages were selected as the state variables, and the
transformer tap setting T, generator bus voltage and 5 possible
VAR source installations of the weakest buses were selected
as the control variables. Therefore, the control variables strings
of the GA are pi = [Vgi, Ti, i], i = 1, 2, ..., m, where m
is the population size. The fitness function is the voltage
security index, Sn. The mutation vector is M = Vg, T, .
The initial settings and the regulating scales of different
controllers are shown in Table 2. The setting limits of the
controllers and the operating limits of the tested system are
given in Table 3. In Table 3, we list the limits of the controllers
and bus voltage magnitudes for the four cases.
The simulation parameters in the GA for different cases
are given in Table 4. In practical applications, a small mutation
probability can only result in premature convergence while
a search using a large mutation probability will not converge.
 C.W. Liu et al.

Table 1. Weak Bus Ranking under Heavy Load Conditions for the IEEE Table 3. The Limits of Controllers and Bus Voltages
30-Bus System
Voltage and Tap setting limits
a ri index load demand V max
g V min
g Tmax Tmin
Rank voltage angle PMU
Bus ri MW MVAR 1.1 0.87 1.050 0.910

1 30 0.2696 0.7693 0.5438 14.77 2.65 + Capacitor / Reactor limits

2 26 0.2594 0.7819 0.4982 4.88 3.20 + cmax cmin (p.u.) One bank capability (p.u.)
3 29 0.2553 0.7874 0.5084 3.34 1.25 + 0.36 0.0 0.04
4 25 0.2317 0.8135 0.4819 0.0 0.0 +
5 27 0.2197 0.8240 0.4611 0.0 0.0 + Generator bus maximum MVAR capability limits
6 24 0.2188 0.8213 0.4997 12.12 9.33 + Bus No. 2 5 8 11 13
7 23 0.2105 0.8209 0.4928 4.46 2.23 + MVAR 50 40 40 24 24
8 19 0.2099 0.8242 0.5081 13.23 4.74 +
9 18 0.2078 0.8234 0.5014 4.46 1.25 + Low voltage limits
10 20 0.2061 0.8339 0.5008 3.06 0.98 + Bus No. 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 14
11 15 0.2002 0.8316 0.4779 11.42 3.48 V (case 1 & 2) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
12 22 0.1994 0.8468 0.4865 0.0 0.0 V (case 3) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.78
13 21 0.1957 0.8464 0.4870 24.38 15.60 V (case 4) 0.85 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.69
14 14 0.1911 0.8356 0.4732 8.64 2.23 Bus No. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
15 17 0.1903 0.8541 0.4765 12.54 8.08 V(case 1 & 2) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85
16 16 0.1876 0.8501 0.4639 4.88 2.51 V (case 3) 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.76 $a $a $a 0.79
17 10 0.1861 0.8689 0.4711 8.08 2.79 V (case 4) 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.70
18 12 0.1734 0.8579 0.4405 15.60 10.45 Bus No. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
19 13 0.1673 0.8954 0.4405 0.0 0.0 V(case 1 & 2) 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.76
20 9 0.1657 0.8880 0.4114 0.0 0.0 V (case 3) 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.77 0.84 0.72 0.70
21 11 0.1579 0.9411 0.4114 0.0 0.0 V (case 4) 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.60 0.66 0.76 0.61 0.60
22 28 0.1369 0.8891 0.3200 0.0 0.0
a
23 8 0.1275 0.8930 0.3231 40.80 40.80 outage contingency condition
24 6 0.1238 0.8991 0.3022 0.0 0.0
25 7 0.1212 0.8793 0.3581 31.76 15.18
26 4 0.1084 0.9185 0.2517 10.59 2.23 Table 4. Simulation Parameters in GA
27 5 0.1082 0.8848 0.3994 133.76 26.98
28 3 0.0903 0.9411 0.2056 3.34 1.67
case
29 2 0.0576 0.9762 0.1405 36.02 11.08 parameter
1 2 3 4
Note: +, Bus in which a PMU is to be installed.
a
The voltage phasors of buses ranked 1 0, which are obtained from PMUs, Maximum generation number 100 100 80 80
are the input patterns of FHRCNNs. Population size, m 50 50 40 40
Crossover probability, pc 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Mutation probability, pm 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1
Table 2. The Initial Settings of Controllers

Capacitor / Reactor settings ( = 0.04a (p.u.)) obtained in different runs using the genetic algorithm. Thus,
VAR 1 2 3 4 5 these results of the GA were the multi-selection and near-
initial 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 optimum solutions, shown in Table 5. In Table 5, we only
list three near-optimum solutions as control decision selections
Transformer taps settings (T = 0.015) (CDS) for VSE in every case. The best fitness in each genera-
OLTC T1 T2 T3 T4 tion was calculated. For example, the searching process for
initial 1 1 1 1 case 3 is shown in Fig. 7. In the figure, it is seen that the
best fitness of these generations clearly increased, and that the
Generator bus voltage settings (Vg = 0.01)
oscillatory phenomenon occurred because the voltage security
Bus 1 2 5 8 11 13 index had a large jump (refer to Fig. 6) at the alert level.
Vg (case 1 & 2) 1.05 1.05 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Vg (case 3) 1.05 1.0 0.95 1.0 $b 0.95
Vg (case 4) 1.05 1.0 0.9 0.9 $b $b Case 1. The test system was investigated under heavy load conditions,
a and the system was operating at the alert level. The load demand
VAR source settings in p.u. on a 100 MVA base.
b
outage contingency condition. and power supply were:

Pload + Qload = 308.57 MW + 137.94 MVAR,

An adaptive mutation probability was given for different
voltage security levels. However, the different results were Pg + Qg = 324.10 MW + 163.70 MVAR.

58
 Table 5. The Results of VSE Using GA on the IEEE 30-Bus System

Objective function Fitness function min. voltage Controller

Numerical secure value Min. singular value Load bus voltage Generator bus voltage OLTC setting Capacitor/Reactor setting
Cass 1 NSV Sn Bus #30 Bus #1 2 5 8 11 13 T1 T2 T3 T4 Bus #30 29 27 26 25 24 20 19
Before 3 0.2157 0.9233 1.06 1.03 1.0 1.01 1.06 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CDS1 4 0.3808 0.9495 1.06 1.04 1.01 1.01 1.07 1.03 1.0 0.985 1.0 0.985 0.08 0.32 0.04 0.32 0.08
CDS2 4 0.3796 0.9480 1.06 1.05 1.0 1.01 1.07 1.03 0.985 1.0 1.0 0.985 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.36 0.08
CDS3 4 0.3779 0.9464 1.06 1.04 1.01 1.02 1.07 1.02 1.0 0.985 0.985 1.0 0.04 0.28 0.04 0.36 0.08

Cass 2 NSV Sn Bus #30 Bus #1 2 5 8 11 13 T1 T2 T3 T4 Bus #28 22 21 17 15 12 9 6

Before 3 0.2157 0.9233 1.06 1.03 1.0 1.01 1.06 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CDS1 4 0.3718 0.9371 1.06 1.04 1.01 1.01 1.07 1.02 1.0 0.985 1.0 0.970 0.20 0.28 0.08 0.28 0.08
CDS2 4 0.3711 0.9363 1.06 1.04 1.0 1.01 1.08 1.03 1.0 0.985 1.0 0.985 0.24 0.20 0.08 0.28 0.12

59
CDS3 4 0.3705 0.9354 1.06 1.03 1.01 1.01 1.07 1.03 1.0 0.985 0.985 1.0 0.06 0.28 0.04 0.32 0.12

Case 3 NSV Sn Bus #30 Bus #1 2 5 8 13 T1 T2 T3 T4 Bus #30 29 27 26 24 23

Before 2 0.1859 0.8773 1.06 1.02 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CDS1 4 0.3680 0.9293 1.06 1.04 1.0 1.0 1.01 0.985 0.97 0.985 0.97 0.12 0.04 0.28 0.32 0.04
Power System Voltage Security

CDS2 4 0.3593 0.9262 1.06 1.03 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.97 0.985 0.97 0.08 0.04 0.24 0.08 0.36
CDS3 4 0.3578 0.9241 1.06 1.03 0.99 1.0 1.01 0.985 0.955 1.0 0.985 0.12 0.24 0.04 0.32 0.08

Case 4 NSV Sn Bus #30 Bus #1 2 5 8 T1 T2 T3 T4 Bus #30 29 27 26 24 20 19 18

Before 1 0.0905 0.7662 1.06 0.94 0.87 0.87 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CDS1 3 0.2067 0.8986 1.06 1.03 0.98 1.0 0.94 0.955 0.94 0.97 0.16 0.12 0.32 0.36 0.16
CDS2 3 0.2042 0.8966 1.06 1.03 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.955 0.94 0.955 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.36 0.20
CDS3 3 0.2010 0.8931 1.06 1.03 0.99 1.0 0.94 0.955 0.955 0.97 0.08 0.36 0.12 0.36 0.12
 C.W. Liu et al.
Table 6. Comparison between the Stochastic Approach and Deterministic
Approach
Stochastic approach Deterministic approach
performance GA SA Newton method Broydens method
accuracy ** ** * *
flexibility *** ** * *
efficiency ** * *** **
stability *** *** * **
simplicity *** * *** ***
Notes: ***distinguished, **mediocre, *disappointing
The controller settings and network states are shown in Table
5. After the GA process finished, the objective function (NSV)
improved from 3 (alert level) to 4 (secure level); the fitness
function (Sn(Js)) increased from 0.2157 to 0.3808(CDS1), 0.3796
(CDS2) or 0.3779(CDS3); and the lowest voltage of the load
bus also increased from 0.9233 to 0.9495(CDS1), 0.9480(CDS2)
or 0.9464(CDS3).
Case 2. The test system was investigated under heavy load conditions
and was operating at the alert level. The load demand was the
same as in Case 1, but we did not use weak buses as candidate
buses for switching to new capacitors/reactors. After the GA
process finished, the objective function (NSV) improved from
3 (alert level) to 4 (secure level); the fitness function (Sn(Js))
increased from 0.2157 to 0.3718(CDS1), 0.3711(CDS2) or
0.3705(CDS3); and the lowest voltage of the load bus increased
from 0.9233 to 0.9371(CDS1), 0.9363(CDS2) or 0.9354(CDS3).
Table 5 compares the results of Cases 1 and 2.
Case 3. The test system was investigated under heavy load conditions,
and generator #11 and line #18-21 were studied under outage
contingency conditions. The system was operating at the dan-
gerous level. The load demand and power supply were:
Pload + Qload = 325.07 MW + 138.53 MVAR,
Pg + Qg = 356.90 MW + 158.45 MVAR.
After the GA process finished, the objective function (NSV)
improved from 2 (dangerous level) to 4 (secure level); the fitness
function (Sn(Js)) increased from 0.1859 to 0.3680(CDS1), 0.3593
(CDS2) or 0.3578(CDS3); and the lowest voltage of the load
bus increased from 0.8773 to 0.9293(CDS1), 0.9262(CDS2) or
0.9241(CDS3). Therefore, in this case, an improvement in the
voltage security level from the dangerous level to the secure level
was obtained.
Case 4. The test system was investigated under peak load, and generators
#5 and #13 were studied under outage contingency conditions.
The system was operating at the very dangerous level. The system
was on the verge of collapse. The load demand and power supply
were:
Pload + Qload = 337.65 MW + 152.70 MVAR,
60
Pg + Qg = 348.30 MW + 157.75 MVAR.
After the GA process finished, the objective function (NSV)
improved from 1 (very dangerous level) to 3 (alert level); the
fitness function (Sn(Js)) increased from 0.0905 to 0.2067(CDS1),
0.2042(CDS2) or 0.2010(CDS3); and the lowest voltage of the
load bus increased from 0.7662 to 0.8986(CDS1), 0.8966(CDS2)
or 0.8931(CDS3). Thus, in this case, an improvement in the
voltage security could be obtained to prevent voltage collapse.
In the above test cases, we could obtain results very close
to many results of numerical tests. Therefore, these results
are nearly global optimal solutions.
V. Discussion and Conclusion
With the increased loads on existing power transmission
systems, VSE problems have become a major concern in
power network operations. Most of the early works on VSE
were based on determinism. The deterministic approach often
cannot find optimal or even near optimal solutions, and the
searching process tends to lead to divergence or instability.
It is difficult to deal with non-continuous, non-differentiable
and complex real-world optimization problems, and it is not
easy to deal with inequality constraints or obtain algorithms
for VSE. Also, only a feasible solution can usually be obtained,
which may lack sufficient robustness to cope with the con-
tingencies encountered.
On the other hand, stochastic methods offer more than
one optimal solution, can deal with non-differentiable con-
strained search and optimization procedures, and can search
a complicated and uncertain area to find global optimal or near
optimal solutions. In addition, the stochastic methods have
been shown to be more flexible, accurate and stabile than
deterministic methods (Chang and Huang, 1998; Hsiao et al.,
1993; Goldberg, 1989; Lee et al., 1995; Chen and Chang, 1995;
Syswerda, 1989). Therefore, the stochastic approach has
become the prime candidate for constrained optimization and
search problems in recent years. In particular, both the SA
and GAs have been used in VAR planning applications (Chang
and Huang, 1998; Hsiao et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1995), and
Fig. 7. Searching process of a GA for Case 3.
 Power System Voltage Security
the SA has been shown to be able to obtain optimal VSE
solutions (Chang and Huang, 1998). However, the SA has
drawbacks in that a tremendous amount of execution time is
needed to obtain a near global solution and its control param-
eters are complex and difficult to handle. GAs, on the other
hand, have inherent parallel computation ability, so they can
search for many optimum solutions in parallel and use fitness
or objective function information directly according to the
searching directions. GAs are more efficient, flexible and
simple than the SA. Therefore, we find that GAs provide a
powerful search technique, unequalled by any other approach
in terms of performance based on accuracy, flexibility,
efficiency, stability and simplicity. A comparison between
stochastic and deterministic methods is shown in Table 6.
To sum up, based on the numerical examples and test
results given in Section IV, we can make the following ob-
servations:
(1) Searching for control decisions for VSE using GAs
is efficient and effective.
(2) These searched control decisions for VSE are near
optimal, flexible solutions.
(3) Control decisions searched using GAs are accurate and
stable.
(4) Reactive power sources can be dispatched using GAs
to enhance voltage security.
(5) Dispatching of reactive power sources using GAs is
easy to implement.
(6) GAs have potential as efficient on-line tools for VSE.
Acknowledgment
We thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China
for financial support under grant NSC 87-2213-E-002-947.
References
Ajjarapu,V., P. L. Lau, and S. Battula (1994) An optimal reactive power
planning strategy against voltage collapse. IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, 9(2), 906-917.
Aoki, K., M. Fan, and A. Nishikori (1988) Optimal Var Planning by
approximation method for recursive mixed integer linear planning. IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, 3(4), 1741-1747.
Begovic, M. M. and A. G. Phadke (1992) Control of voltage stability using
sensitivity analysis. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 7(4), 114-123.
Billiington, R. and S. S. Sachdev (1983) Optimum network Var planning
by nonlinear programming. IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, PAS-102(5), 1214-1222.
61
Canizares, C. A. and F. L. Alvarado (1993) Point of collapse and continuation
methods for large AC/DC systems. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems,
8(1), 1-8.
Chang, C. S. and J. S. Huang (1998) Optimal multi-objective SVC planning
for voltage stability enhancement. IEE Proceeding-C, 145(2), 203-209.
Chebbo, A. M., M. R. Irving, and M. J. H. Sterling (1992a) Voltage collapse
proximity indicator: behavior and implications. IEE Proceeding-C, 139
(3), 241-252.
Chebbo, A. M., M. R. Irving, and M. J. H. Sterling (1992b) Reactive power
dispatch incorporating voltage stability. IEE Proceeding-C, 139(3), 253-
260.
Chen, P. K. and H. C. Chang (1995) Large-scale economic dispatch by
genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 10(4), 1919-1925.
Freris, L. L. and A. M. Sasson (1968) Investigation of the load-flow problem.
IEE Proceeding-C, 115(10), 1459-1470.
Gao, B., G. K. Morison, and P. Kundur (1992) Voltage stability evaluation
using Modal analysis. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 7(4), 1529-1542.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989) Genetic algorithms in search. In: Optimization and
Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, U.S.A.
Hegdt, G. T. and W. M. Grady (1983) Optimal Var siting using linear load
flow formulation. IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-
102(5), 1214-1222.
Hsiao,Y. T., C. C. Liu, H. D. Chiang, and Y. L. Chen (1993) A new approach
for optimal Var sources planning in large scale electric power systems.
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 8(3), 988-996.
IEEE Publication (1990) Voltage Stability of Power Systems: Concepts,
Analytical Tools, and Industry Experience. 90TH0358-2-PWR, IEEE
Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, U.S.A.
Lee, K. Y., X. Bai, and Y. M. Park (1995) Optimization method for reactive
power planning by using a modified simple genetic algorithm. IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, 10(4), 1843-1850.
Liu, C. W., C. S. Chang, and M. C. Su (1998) Neuro-fuzzy networks for
voltage security monitoring based on synchronized phasor measurements.
IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 13(2), 326-332.
Lf, P. A., T. Semed, G. Andersson, and D. J. Hill (1992) Fast calculation
of a voltage stability index. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 7(1), 54-
64.
Mangooli, M. K., K. Y. Lee, and Y. M. Park (1993) Optimal long-term
reactive power planning using decomposition network techniques. Electric
Power Systems Research, 26, 41-52.
Nanba, M., Y. Huang, T. Kai, and S. Iwamoto (1998) Studies on VIPI based
control methods for improving voltage stability. Electrical Power &
Energy System, 20(2), 141-146.
Schlueter, R. A. (1998) A voltage security assessment method. IEEE Trans.
on Power Systems, 13(4), 1423-1438.
Syswerda, G. (1989) Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. Proceeding
of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 2-9,
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.
Taylor, C. W. (1994) Power System Voltage Stability. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, NY, U.S.A.
Van Cutsem, T. (1991) A method to compute reactive power margins with
respect to voltage collapse. IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 6(1), 145-
156.
 C.W. Liu et al.

* * **

*

**

GA

SVCs
IEEE 30

62