2015
DOI: 10.1080/15325008.2015.1061620
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal Power Flow Using a Hybrid Optimization Algorithm of Particle Swarm Optimization and Gravitational Search Algorithm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
57
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Notably, the majority of obtained solutions using heuristic optimization algorithms (Table 2) are infeasible, which is principally due to voltage magnitude violations at one or more system load buses, as well as reactive power generation bound violations at one or more generation units. Notably, [23] also reported solution infeasibility for many previous methods, as compared in Table 2. Implementing Jaya method for fuel cost reduction when accommodating the DG at node 30 produces an even more significant reduction in fuel cost, reaching 768.0398 $/h, an attractive L max value (0.0969), and a great expansion of shunt compensators reactive power saving of up to 29.8391 MVAR.…”
Section: Case 1: Fuel Cost Minimizationmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Notably, the majority of obtained solutions using heuristic optimization algorithms (Table 2) are infeasible, which is principally due to voltage magnitude violations at one or more system load buses, as well as reactive power generation bound violations at one or more generation units. Notably, [23] also reported solution infeasibility for many previous methods, as compared in Table 2. Implementing Jaya method for fuel cost reduction when accommodating the DG at node 30 produces an even more significant reduction in fuel cost, reaching 768.0398 $/h, an attractive L max value (0.0969), and a great expansion of shunt compensators reactive power saving of up to 29.8391 MVAR.…”
Section: Case 1: Fuel Cost Minimizationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The network has six generator units at buses 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 13. Load buses 10,12,15,17,20,21,23,24, and 29 are equipped with switchable shunt capacitors. Four tap changing transformers are installed at lines 6-9, 6-10, 4-12, and 27-28.…”
Section: Ieee 30-bus Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Additionally, the results are compared with other methods, and the comparison is shown in Table 9. According to the value of the weighted sum, IKHA is better than KHA, particle swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm (PSOGSA) [29], The proposed KHA [39], adaptive biogeography based predator-prey optimization (ABPPO) [40], MSA [22], LTLBO [23], Gbest guided artificial bee colony algorithm (GABC) [24] and ICBO [12] Looking at the two goals separately, the results of IKHA are lower than those of KHA and the proposed KHA For the results of the other methods in Table 8, such as the PSOGSA [29], only one of the two goals is better than IKHA. As the individual evaluation criteria are different, the optimal solution is different.…”
Section: Case 5: Minimization Of Quadratic Cost and Voltage Magnitudementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Case 1-b considers the valve point effect which is described as an absolute sinusoidal function [29]. In this case, the valve point effect is added to the basic quadratic cost functions of generators at buses 1 and 2, and the non-differential objective function is calculated as follows:…”
Section: Case 1: Minimization Of Quadratic Fuel Cost Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%