Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210

Application of particle swarm optimization technique and its variants to

generation expansion planning problem
S. Kannan a,∗ , S. Mary Raja Slochanal b , P. Subbaraj a , Narayana Prasad Padhy c
a Electrical Engineering Department, A.K. College of Engineering, Anand Nagar, Krishnankoil 626190, India
b Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, India
c Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

Received 2 May 2003; received in revised form 20 November 2003; accepted 9 December 2003

Abstract

This paper presents the application of particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique and its variants to least-cost generation expansion
planning (GEP) problem. The GEP problem is a highly constrained, combinatorial optimization problem that can be solved by complete
enumeration. PSO is one of the swarm intelligence (SI) techniques, which use the group intelligence behavior along with individual intelligence
to solve the combinatorial optimization problem. A novel ‘virtual mapping procedure’ (VMP) is introduced to enhance the effectiveness of
the PSO approaches. Penalty function approach (PFA) is used to reduce the number of infeasible solutions in the subsequent iterations. In
addition to simple PSO, many variants such as constriction factor approach (CFA), Lbest model, hybrid PSO (HPSO), stretched PSO (SPSO)
and composite PSO (C-PSO) are also applied to test systems. The differential evolution (DE) technique is used for parameter setting of C-PSO.
The PSO and its variants are applied to a synthetic test system of five types of candidate units with 6- and 14-year planning horizon. The
results obtained are compared with dynamic programming (DP) in terms of speed and efficiency.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Combinatorial optimization; Composite PSO; Constriction factor approach; Differential evolution; Generation expansion planning; Particle swarm
optimization; Penalty function approach; Stretched PSO; Swarm intelligence; Virtual mapping procedure

1. Introduction (DP) are applied to solve this combinatorial optimization

Generation expansion planning (GEP) problem is to
determine ‘WHAT’ type of generating units to be commis-
sioned and ‘WHEN’ the generating units to be committed
online, over a long-range planning horizon [1,2]. The main
objective of GEP is to minimize the total investment and
operating costs associated with the addition of new units
and to satisfy the reliability, fuel mix, and the demand cri-
terion. As GEP is a highly constrained, nonlinear, discrete
optimization problem, it is a highly challenging problem
for the decision makers. The solution for this GEP problem
may be obtained by complete enumeration of each possible
combination in the entire planning horizon. Since 1950,
many optimization techniques such as linear program-
ming, integer programming and dynamic programming
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kannaneee@rediffmail.com (S. Kannan).
problems [3,4].
Nowadays, evolutionary computational (EC) techniques
are used to solve the combinatorial optimization problems.
Genetic algorithm (GA) is a search algorithm based on the
mechanism of natural selection and genetics and uses the
concept of ‘Survival of the fittest’ to find the optimal solu-
tion [5]. Improved genetic algorithm (IGA) with stochastic
crossover technique and elitism is applied to solve the GEP
problem [6]. Evolutionary programming (EP), one of the
EC techniques, is emerging as efficient approach for various
search, classification, and optimization problems [7]. GA
and EP use genetic operators. EP does not perform crossover
operation as GA, but obtains the solution by selection, mu-
tation, and competition. EP with domain mapping procedure
is applied to GEP problem [8].
Recently swarm intelligence (SI) techniques, particle
swarm optimization (PSO) and ant colony optimization
(ACO) techniques are gaining more importance. They are
used to solve the combinatorial optimization problems,

0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2003.12.009
204 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210

due to its simplicity in coding and consistency in perfor-
mance. These techniques use swarm behavior to solve the
problem, (i.e.) they use the concept of group intelligence
along with individual intelligence. PSO technique is used
to solve continuous combinatorial optimization problems
[9,10].
In this paper the five variants of PSO [9], are applied
to solve the GEP problem. The virtual mapping procedure
(VMP) and penalty function approach (PFA) are also ad-
dressed to reduce the number of infeasible solutions that
appear in the subsequent iterations. The variants of PSO
incorporating VMP and PFA approach are applied to a
test system with 15 existing units, five types of candidate
units for a planning period of 6- and 14-year. The test
results are compared with DP and their performances are
evaluated.
and the newly introduced units, s the variable used to in-
dicate that the maintenance cost is calculated at the middle
of each year, O(Xt ) the outage cost of the existing and the
newly introduced units, S(Ut ) the salvage value of the newly
added unit at tth interval, d the discount rate, CIi the capital
investment cost of ith unit, δi the salvage factor of ith unit,
T the length of the planning horizon (in stage), N the total
number of different types of units, FC the fixed cost of the
existing as well as newly added units, MC the maintenance
cost of the units and OC is the outage cost of the units.
2.2. Constraints
2.2.1. Upper construction limit
Let Ut be the units to be committed in the expansion
plan at stage t that must satisfy the maximum construction
capacity of the units to be committed:

2. Formulation of least-cost GEP problem 0 ≤ Ut ≤ Umax,t (8)

where Umax,t is the maximum construction capacity of the

2.1. Objective function units in stage t.
The GEP problem is equivalent to find a set of best de- 2.2.2. Reserve margin
cision vectors over a planning horizon that minimizes the The selected units must satisfy the minimum and maxi-
investment and operating costs with several constraints. The mum reserve margin:
cost function (objective function) is represented by the fol-
N


lowing expression:
(1 + Rmin ) × Dt ≤ Xt,i ≤ (1 + Rmax ) × Dt (9)
T

i=1
min C = [I(Ut ) + M(Xt ) + O(Xt ) − S(Ut )] (1)
t=1 where Rmin is the minimum reserve margin, Rmax the max-
imum reserve margin, Dt the demand at tth stage in MW,
where
Xt ,i is the cumulative capacity of ith unit in stage t.
Xt = Xt−1 + Ut (t = 1, . . . , T) (2)
N
2.2.3. Fuel mix ratio


−2t The GEP has different types of generating units such as
I(Ut ) = (1 + d) (CIi × Ut,i ) (3)
i=1
coal, liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil, and nuclear. The se-
lected units along with the existing units of each type must
N

satisfy the fuel mix ratio:

S(Ut ) = (1 + d)−T (CIi × δi × Ut,i ) (4)
j Xt,j j
i=1 Mmin ≤ N ≤ Mmax , j = 1, 2, . . . , N (10)
1  
 i=1 Xt,i

 
M(Xt ) = (1 + d)1.5+t +s (Xt × FC) + MC j
where Mmin is the minimum fuel mix ratio of jth type, Mmax
j
s =0
the maximum fuel mix ratio of jth type, j is the type of the
(5) unit (type of fuel used: oil, LNG, coal, nuclear).


1
 
O(Xt ) = OC × (1 + d)1.5+t +s (6) 2.2.4. Reliability criterion
s =0 The selected units along with the existing units must sat-
isfy the reliability criterion, loss of load probability (LOLP):
t  = 2(t − 1), and T  = 2 × T − t (7)
LOLP(Xt ) ≤ ε (11)
and C is the total cost, Ut the vector of newly introduced
unit in the stage t (1 stage = 2 years), Xt −1 the cumula- where ε is the reliability criterion expressed in LOLP.
tive capacity vector of existing units in the stage (t − 1), Xt In addition, the energy produced by each unit and expected
the cumulative capacity vector of existing units in the stage energy not served (EENS) is calculated using ‘equivalent
t, I(Ut ) the investment cost of the newly added unit at tth energy function method’. The EENS indices are used for
stage, M(Xt ) the operation and maintenance cost of existing outage cost calculation [2].
 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210
3. Overview of PSO and its variants
The inherent rule adhered by the members of birds and
fishes in the swarm, enables them to move, synchronize,
without colliding, resulting in an amazing choreography was
the basic idea of PSO technique [11,12]. PSO is similar to EC
techniques in which, a population of potential solutions to
the problem under consideration is used to probe the search
space. The major difference is that, the EC techniques use
genetic operators whereas SI techniques use the physical
movements of the individuals in the swarm.
3.1. Parameters of PSO
PSO is developed through simulation of bird flocking in
two-dimensional space. The position of each agent is rep-
resented in X–Y plane with position (sx , sy ), vx (velocity
along X-axis), and vy (velocity along Y-axis). Modification
of the agent position is realized by the position and velocity
information.
Bird flocking optimizes a certain objective function. Each
agent knows its best value so far, called ‘Pbest’, which
contains the information on position and velocities. This
information is the analogy of personal experience of each
agent. Moreover, each agent knows the best value so far,
in the group ‘Gbest’ among Pbests. This information is the
analogy of knowledge, how the other neighboring agents
have performed. Each agent tries to modify its position
by considering current positions (sx , sy ), current velocities
(vx , vy ), the individual intelligence (Pbest), and the group
intelligence (Gbest).
The following equations are utilized, in computing the
position and velocities, in the X–Y plane:
vk+1
i = w × vki + C1 × rand1 × (Pbesti − sik )
+ C2 × rand2 × (Gbest − sik ) (12)
sik+1 = sik + vk+1
i (13)
where, vk+1 is the velocity of (k + 1)th iteration of ith in-
i
k
dividual, vi the velocity of kth iteration of ith individual, w
the inertial weight, C1 , C2 are the positive constants, having
values [0, 2], rand1 , rand2 are the random numbers selected
between 0 and 1, Pbesti is the best position of the ith indi-
vidual, Gbest the best position among the individual (group
best) and sik is the position of ith individual at kth iteration
The velocity of each agent is modified according to (12)
and the position is modified according to (13). The weight-
ing factor ‘w’ is modified using (14) to enable quick con-
vergence:
wmax − wmin
w = wmax − × iter (14)
itermax
where wmax is the initial weight, wmin the final weight, iter
the current iteration number and itermax is the maximum
iteration number.
205
3.2. Variants of PSO
Few modifications are incorporated in simple PSO and
the modified techniques are called (1) constriction factor
approach (CFA), (2) Lbest model, (3) hybrid PSO (HPSO),
(4) stretched PSO (SPSO), and (5) composite PSO (C-PSO).
3.2.1. Constriction factor approach (CFA)
Both in simple PSO and in CFA, maximum and minimum
velocities are set to a priori values to avoid the infeasible
combinations. In PSO, these values are kept constant. How-
ever, in CFA, the velocity (vi+1 ) is modified by a factor
known as constriction factor (χ) such that (vi+1 ) = χ(vi ).
This modification increases the performance of modified
PSO. The constriction factor (χ) is selected between (0,
1). By properly selecting the constriction factor (χ), the
velocities can be maintained in a constant interval without
exceeding the set velocities.
The constriction factor value can be either fixed or varied
randomly. In fixed CFA, a fixed value (say 0.78) is chosen.
To improve the effectiveness of the approach, the value of ‘χ’
may be selected inversely proportional to ‘w’. The modified
velocity equation is given below:
vk+1
i = χ[vki + C1 × rand1 × (Pbesti − sik ) + C2 × rand2
× (Gbest − sik )] (15)
3.2.2. Lbest model
In simple PSO, the velocities of the individuals are modi-
fied based on the personal experience and the group behavior.
However, in the Lbest model, the velocities of the individuals
are modified, by considering the personal experience of the
individual as well as the experience of the neighboring indi-
vidual (not the whole group behavior as with simple PSO).
The velocity of an individual is modified by the following
equation:
vk+1
i = [w × vki + C1 × rand1 × (Pbesti − sik ) + C2
× rand2 × (Nbest − sik )] (16)
where ‘Nbest’ is the best value of the neighboring individual.
The number of neighboring individuals selected, may be
based on the size of the problem. The convergence and exe-
cution time depends upon the number of neighbors. Greater
the number of neighbors, closer to the optimum value and
higher the execution time, and vice versa.
3.2.3. Hybrid PSO (HPSO)
The modified method is called hybrid PSO (HPSO), since
it uses the basic concept of PSO such as velocity updating,
position modification and the selection mechanism of EC
techniques:
basic concepts of PSO ⊕ selection process of EC techniques
⇒ hybrid PSO
206 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210
The solution obtained by simple PSO depends on indi-
vidual best (Pbest) and the group best (Gbest). Hence, these
Pbest and Gbest parameters limit the search space. The
search space can be broadened by introducing the selection
mechanism in simple PSO. The competitive selection pro-
cess is used in HPSO.
In competitive selection process, the individuals with
worst fitness function values are replaced by, those one with
better fitness function values. Due to this, two or more par-
ticles move from the same position with different velocity.
3.2.4. Stretched PSO (SPSO)
The main drawback found with many global optimization
techniques is that the problem of converging to local minima.
The GEP problem has numerous local minima. When the
search begins, the solution may fall and may stagnate in
the local minima itself. In such situation, a technique called
‘stretching’ (SPSO) is employed to escape from the local
minima.
The equations used are two-stage transformation equa-
tions. In the first stage, FCi (original fitness function) is
transformed into Gi using (17). This Gi eliminates all the
local minima located above ī. The second transformation
stretches the neighborhood of FCi upward without affecting
the global minima using (18). The two-stage transformation
equations are given below:
 
Gi = FCi + γ1 i − ī (sgn(FCi − FCi ) + 1) (17)
sgn(FCi − FCi )
Hi = Gi + γ2 (18)
tanh(µ(Gi − Gi ))
where ī represents one of the local minima, Gi is the first
transformation function, which eliminates the entire local
minima located above ī, FCi the fitness function value of
ith individual, Hi the second transformation function, which
stretches all the neighborhood of ī upwards, γ 1 , γ 2 , µ are
positive constants, sgn(·) is the signum function which is
triple valued (−1, 0, 1).
Both stages do not alter the local minimum, which is
located below ī. Thus, the location of the global minimum
is left unaltered.
3.2.5. Composite PSO (C-PSO)
The PSO parameters (w, C1 , C2 ) are selected in the
previous sections by trial and error. The selection of PSO
parameters by some other algorithms such as GA, EP, or
differential evolution (DE) may produce a good result. The
DE algorithm is an EC technique developed by Storn and
Price [13]. The DE algorithm is used for parameter selection
of PSO. The C-PSO algorithm employing DE algorithm is
explained below.
3.2.6. C-PSO algorithm
Step 1. Initialize ‘i’ to zero and set maximum number of
iterations as I. Generate initial position of particles (si ), ini-
tial velocity (vi ), and the initial PSO parameters (Xi =
[w, C1 , C2 ]) randomly. The size of s, v and X is equal to Np ,
where Np is the size of the population and ‘i’ is the current
iteration number.
Step 2. For each Xi , calculate vi and si using (12) and (13).
Calculate the fitness function value using (19).
Step 3. Apply mutation, crossover, and selection operators
of DE algorithm on Xi . Let X∗ be the best individual pro-
duced by this process. Replace Xi by X∗ and repeat the pro-
cess for a priori set number of iterations of DE is reached.
Step 4. The process continues from Step 2 until the stopping
criterion (maximum number of iterations ‘I’) is met.
4. PSO and its variants implementation to GEP problem
The additional concept introduced to improve the effec-
tiveness of the proposed techniques is VMP and PFA.
4.1. Virtual mapping procedure (VMP)
To improve the effectiveness of the proposed approach, a
novel mapping procedure called ‘virtual mapping procedure’
is used to solve the least-cost GEP problem. This map-
ping procedure transforms the number of candidate units for
each year to a dummy variable (i.e.) it maps the yearly cu-
mulative capacity numbers into one dummy variable. This
dummy variable specifies the position of each agent in the
swarm. The position is modified, by adding velocity with this
dummy variable. This improves the performance of PSO.
The main advantage of using VMP for this GEP problem
is to avoid the dimensionality problem since it handles single
dummy variable. In addition, it needs less memory space.
Further, if the mapped variable took part in all the PSO
related operation, a small change in the mapped variable will
reduce the infeasible solutions.
The steps involved in VMP are as follows:
• Form all the possible combinations of the candidate units.
• Multiply the number of units with the corresponding ca-
pacities and adding them to get the total capacity (see
Table 1).
• Arrange the total capacity in ascending order (see Table 2).
Thus, a multivariable could be mapped to a single variable
problem.
To illustrate, this VMP could be explained with two num-
bers of 1000 MW unit and two numbers of 700 MW units,
in Table 1. The capacities and the corresponding variables
are arranged in ascending order, as shown in Table 2. If the
dummy variable value is 4, it indicates one number of 1000
MW and one number of 700 MW units.
 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210 207

Table 1 ity of obtaining infeasible solution. The infeasible solutions

Virtual mapping procedure—combination generation are avoided in the subsequent iterations by using PFA. In
X1 × (1000 MW) X2 × (700 MW) Total capacity (MW) this approach, the objective function is evaluated and the
0 0 0
reserve margin, LOLP and fuel mix ratio are checked for
0 1 700 constraint violation. If the constraints are violated, then
0 2 1400 proportional penalty value is added to the objective func-
1 0 1000 tion. The objective function with penalty function approach
1 1 1700 is given as fitness function cost (FC):
1 2 2400



2 0 2000
2 1 2700
FCi = Ci + α1 ψ1 + α2 ψ2 + α3 ψ3 (19)
2 2 3400
where FCi is the fitness function value of ith individual, Ci
the objective function value of ith individual, α1 the penalty
4.2. Initialization of agents and their velocity in the swarms factor for the constraint, reserve margin, ψ1 the violation
amount of the constraint, reserve margin, α2 the penalty
The initial agents are selected randomly from the mapped factor for the constraint, fuel mix ratio, ψ2 the violation
variable. The velocities of each agent are also selected ran- amount of the constraint, fuel mix ratio, α3 the penalty fac-
domly between 0 and 1. The size of the swarm will be tor for the constraint LOLP and ψ3 is the violation amount
(Np × n), where Np is the total number of agents in the of the constraint, LOLP.
swarm and ‘n’ is the number of stages. Here, 2 years plan-
ning period is assumed as one stage. 4.6. Termination criteria

4.3. Updating the velocity
The velocity is updated by considering the current velocity
of the agent, the best fitness function value of that agent,
and the best fitness function value among the agents in the
swarm. The velocity of each agent is modified by (12). The
value of the weighting factor ‘w’ in (12) is decremented by
(14) to enable quicker convergence.
4.4. Updating the position
The position of each agent is updated by adding the up-
dated velocity with the current position of the individual in
the swarm. The position of the ith individual at (k + 1)th
iteration is found by (13).
4.5. Fitness function evaluation
(penalty function approach)
The process continues until the maximum number of it-
erations set a priori is reached.
Most of the variant techniques differ in the way by which
the velocity is updated. For CFA and Lbest model, the ve-
locity is updated by (15) and (16), respectively. HPSO, the
algorithm is similar to simple PSO but an additional mech-
anism of selection is introduced to avoid converging to the
local minimum. In HPSO, the position of worst individuals
is replaced by the position of best individuals. Competitive
selection process is used in HPSO.
In SPSO, simple PSO is applied as starter. When the indi-
viduals stagnate in local minimum, stretching is applied on
the original objective function value by the two-stage trans-
formations given by (17) and (18). Because of these trans-
formations, the global minimum is not altered.
The C-PSO procedure starts with the initial solutions
taken from the mapped variable.

The fitness function of the agents is evaluated using (1). 5. Test results
As the individuals are selected randomly, there is a possibil-
All the PSO techniques and DP for GEP problem was im-
Table 2 plemented using MATLAB on a PC with Pentium 500 MHz
Virtual mapping procedure—mapping with dummy variable processor.
X1 × (1000 MW) X2 × (700 MW) Total capacity Y (dummy
(MW) variable) 5.1. Test system description
0 0 0 0
0 1 700 1 The forecasted load demand is given in Table 3. The tech-
1 0 1000 2
0 2 1400 3
nical data for the existing units and candidate units are taken
1 1 1700 4 from [6]. The test system consists of 15 existing units and
2 0 2000 5 five different fuel types of new candidate units, with the
1 2 2400 6 maximum construction capacity of 5, 4, 3, 3, and 3 are as-
2 1 2700 7 sumed to be present in every stage. Three test cases are con-
2 2 3400 8
sidered. In the test case-1, 6-year planning horizon with a
208 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210

Table 3
Forecasted load demand
Stage

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Year 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Peak (MW) 5000 7000 9000 10000 12000 13000 14000 15000

total number of 18 candidate units is considered. The test
case-2, is same as that of test case-1, but the maximum con-
struction capacity of each fuel type is doubled with a total
number of 36 units. The test case-3 is same as that of test
case-1, but the planning horizon is increased to 14 years.
5.2. Parameters for GEP
The parameters pertaining to the GEP problem are taken
from [6]. Practically, the lower and upper bounds for reserve
margin are set to 20 and 40% to meet any failure in gen-
erating units and to carry out maintenance activities. The
salvage factor is additionally added to include the depreci-
ation value of the units in calculating the salvage value of
the newly added units. Additionally the following parame-
ters are assumed and used in solving the GEP problem. The
unserved energy (EENS) cost is set at 0.05 Rs./kWh. The
initial period is 2 years. The investment cost, maintenance
cost, and salvage cost are assumed to occur at the begin-
ning of the year, middle of the year, and at the end of the
planning period, respectively. The outage cost is determined
using the EENS indices.
5.3. Parameters for PSO and its variants
The parameters of PSO and its variants are selected
through trial and error is given in Table 4.
5.4. Results and discussion
The results, shown in Tables 5–7 for three different test
cases, give best and worst values, success rate with mini-
mum and maximum error percentage of each algorithm. The
success rate is the ratio of number of times the best solution
obtained to the number of test runs. The success rate of each
algorithm differs.
5.4.1. Test case-1
This test case consists of five different fuel types of 18
new candidate units with a planning horizon of 6 years. The
results of the test case-1, for 100-test simulation runs of each
algorithm are given in Table 5. Simple PSO is the basic for
all PSO techniques. It has a success rate of 68% for this
simple test case and best result was obtained at the 180th
iteration with an execution time of 285 s.
In the simple PSO, as the velocity is modified based on
Gbest and Pbest of the current individuals, the velocity ex-
ceeds the predefined value under some circumstances. To
avoid this difficulty, the velocity is restricted to some max-
imum set value. This is achieved in CFA, by multiplying
the velocity term by a factor called ‘constriction factor’ as
explained in Section 3.2.1. The CFA took 130 iterations to
converge to best solution, whereas the simple PSO took 180
iterations. The success rate of the CFA is 83%. Hence, the
performance of the CFA is better than the simple PSO.
In the simple PSO, the particles are assumed to move to-
wards the previous best location and the best position among
its neighbors. Whereas, in Lbest model, the particles choose
some ‘n’ nearest neighbors and communicate with them.
Because of this neighborhood information, the particles
moving in the search space have more information regarding
the solution space when compared to other variants of PSO.
Hence, the success rate for finding best result in Lbest model
is more than that of simple PSO. The best solution was ob-
tained at the 120th iteration. However, the execution time of
Lbest model is higher than simple PSO (more than twice).
This is due to, the fact that the individual particles of the
simple PSO move with the single Gbest. However, in Lbest
model, the particles are allowed to move with two or three

Table 4
Parameters of PSO and its variants
Parameters Simple PSO CFA Lbest model HPSO SPSO C-PSO

Population size 20 20 20 50 20 20
Max. no. of iteration 200 200 200 200 200 100
wmax , wmin (0.8, 0.2) (0.8, 0.2) (0.8,0.2) (0.8,0.2) (0.8,0.2) Parameter selection by DE algorithm
C1 , C2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
χ 1 0.8 1 1 1 1
Exchange rate – – – 40% – –
No. of neighbors selected – – 3 – – –
 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210 209

Table 5
Result obtained by PSO and its variants technique (test case-1) (18 candidate units with 6-year planning horizon)
PSO and its variants Total cost (Rs.) × 1010 Success rate (%) Mean execution Error (min − max) (%)
(for 100 runs) time (s)
Best result Worst result

Simple PSO 1.2009 1.2059 68 285 0–0.42

CFA 1.2009 1.2071 83 198 0–0.52
Lbest model 1.2009 1.2024 91 655 0–0.12
HPSO 1.2009 1.2050 84 415 0–0.34
SPSO 1.2009 1.2012 90 291 0–0.02
C-PSO 1.2009 1.2044 80 2223 0–0.30
DP 1.2009 100 320 0

Table 6
Result obtained by PSO and its variants technique (test case-2) (36 candidate units with 6-year planning horizon)
PSO and its variants Total cost (Rs.) × 1010 Success rate (%) Mean execution Error (min − max) (%)
(for 100 runs) time (s)
Best result Worst result
Simple PSO 1.1984 1.2224 11 368 0–2.00
CFA 1.1984 1.2019 54 388 0–0.30
Lbest model 1.1984 1.2040 46 1124 0–0.47
HPSO 1.1984 1.2045 12 430 0–0.51
SPSO 1.1984 1.2047 61 863 0–0.53
C-PSO 1.1984 1.2068 52 2369 0–0.70
DP 1.1984 100 4411 0

neighboring individuals’ intelligence along with its own
personal experience and hence the execution time gets
increased.
In SPSO, the optimal or the best result was obtained, at
110th iteration and the success rate was found to be 90%.
When the algorithm stumbles upon the local minima, or
when there is no further improvement, then the stretching
technique is employed to escape from the stagnation. The
execution time of this approach is also less when compared
to other variants.
If the worst individuals took part in the group, then these
individuals may not contribute much for finding the best
solution. Hence, HPSO is used to improve the performance
by omitting the worst individuals and introducing best in-
dividuals through the selection mechanism. In HPSO, the
positions of the worst individuals are replaced by the posi-
tion of best individuals. From the new position, the particles
move with their own velocities. This approach produces
best result with a success rate of 84%, with higher execution
time than simple PSO, CFA, and SPSO.
The C-PSO technique has a moderate success rate of
80% and the execution time is higher than that of other
variant techniques. This is due to the fact that, the C-PSO
has some additional computation like mutation, crossover,
and selection.
Therefore, it may be concluded that, CFA performs better
in terms of execution time and if some sacrifice is made in
terms of execution time, Lbest model and SPSO perform
better than other methods in terms of high success rate and
lower error.
5.4.2. Test case-2
This test case consists of five different fuel types of 36
new candidate units with a planning horizon of 6-year. The
results obtained for the 100-test simulation runs with the
best and worst solutions with error percentage and the mean
execution time are given in Table 6.
For this test case of 36 units, the Lbest model, CFA,
and SPSO, have higher success rate compared to HPSO
and C-PSO. CFA is superior to all other variants, in

Table 7
Result obtained by PSO and its variants technique (test case-3) (18 candidate units with 14-year planning horizon)
PSO and its variants Total cost (Rs.) × 1010 Success rate (%) Mean execution Error (min − max) (%)
(for 25 runs) time (min)
Best result Worst result

Simple PSO 2.1865 2.2049 0 20 0.31–1.16

CFA 2.1797 2.1926 51 21 0–0.59
Lbest model 2.1797 2.1941 40 67 0–0.66
HPSO 2.1852 2.2067 0 52 0.25–1.24
SPSO 2.1797 2.1988 40 29 0–0.88
C-PSO 2.1797 2.2176 33 98 0–1.73
DP 2.1797 100 2700 0
210 S. Kannan et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 70 (2004) 203–210
terms of success rate and error, which is evident from
Table 6.
5.4.3. Test case-3
It could be seen that barring simple PSO and HPSO, all
variants are able to obtain best solutions, which is evident
from Table 7. From Table 7, it is easy to conclude that
CFA performs better than all other algorithms in terms of
success rate, execution time, and error. The Lbest model is
also performing better with lower error, but it takes higher
execution time than CFA.
It may be concluded that, simple PSO may not give satis-
factory results for large dimension problem, which is evident
from Tables 5–7. The modifications are necessary to improve
the performance of simple PSO to deal with large dimension
problems. The SPSO is suitable for problems with numerous
local minima. The Lbest model also performs better for this
type of GEP problem. Overall, it is concluded that perfor-
mance of CFA is better than other PSO algorithms in terms
of success rate, execution time, and tolerance/error limit.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, an attempt is made to solve three different
test cases of GEP problem using PSO and its variants. A
new technique called VMP is introduced in this paper. This
procedure is used in all PSO algorithms and it is found
that the VMP procedure reduces the execution time, and
the chances of infeasible solution while increasing the ef-
ficiency. The simulation results are used to compare the
different algorithms with respect to speed, success rate and
error percentage of objective function value. The results
are also compared with the solution obtained by the DP.
The consistency of all algorithms is verified with 100-test
simulation runs for test case-1, test case-2, and with 25-test
simulation run for test case-3. As PFA starts with infeasible
solutions and progressively leads to feasible solution in the
subsequent iterations and converges to best solution. The re-
sults obtained for all the three test cases ensure that, the so-
lutions obtained were within the tolerable error limits (2%).
For the GEP problem of 6-year planning horizon, the ex-
ecution time of the PSO techniques is found greater than the
DP technique. For the 14-year planning horizon, DP takes
much time (45 h) to find the optimal solution. If the planning
horizon is increased and/or the number of units is increased,
the execution time of DP increased. Hence, the time taken
by DP, increases exponentially as dimension increase. How-
ever, the PSO techniques produced the best result in much
less time when compared with DP.
Among the variants of PSO, it is found that constriction
factor approach performs comparatively better than other
algorithms in terms of success rate, execution time, and error
limit.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank their respective institutions for
the necessary help and support.
References
[1] Introduction to the WASP-IV model User’s manual, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, November 2001.
[2] X. Wang, McDonald, Modern Power System Planning, McGraw-Hill
International Limited, Singapore, 1994.
[3] J.S. Khokhar, Programming Models for the Electricity Industry, Com-
monwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 1997.
[4] A.K. David, R. Zhao, Integrating expert systems with dynamic pro-
gramming in generation expansion planning, IEEE Trans. PWRS
4 (3) (1989) 1095–1101.
[5] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1989.
[6] J.-B. Park, Y.-M. Park, J.-R. Won, K.Y. Lee, An improved genetic
algorithm for generation expansion planning, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems 15 (3) (2000) 916–922.
[7] Zbigniew Michalewich, ‘Genetic algorithm + Data structures
= Evolutionary programs’, Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[8] Y. Park, J. Won, J. Park, D. Kim, Generation Expansion Planning
Based on an Advanced Evolutionary Programming, IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 14 (1), February 1999.
[9] K.E. Parsopoulos, M.N. Vrahatis, Recent Approaches to Global Op-
timization Problems Through Particle Swarm Optimization, Natural
Computing 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2002,
pp. 235–306.
[10] H. Yoshida, K. Kawata, Y. Fukuyama, S. Takayama, Y. Nakanishi, A
particle swarm optimization for reactive power and voltage control
considering voltage security assessment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
15 (4) (2000) 1232–1239.
[11] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, vol. IV, in:
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks
(ICNN’95), Perth, Australia, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
[12] Y. Fukuyama, Fundamentals of Particle Swarm Optimization Tech-
niques, IEEE-PES Tutorial on Modern Heuristic Optimization Tech-
niques with Application to Power Systems (Chapter 5).
[13] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution-a simple and efficient heuris-
tic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim.
11 (1997) 341–359.