1

Abstract-- In this paper we present the application of an

improved version of the Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm
(NPGA), a Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA), to
the Multi-Objective design of Power Distribution Systems. This
algorithm has been developed to obtain a set of feasible solutions
by considering some technical constraints. The problem of design
is formulated to select the optimum size and layout of substations
and feeders. It can be expressed as a Multi-Objective
optimization problem minimizing two objectives: Cost and Non-
Supplied Energy (NSE). The results confirm the suitability of the
NPGA algorithm to the Power Distribution Systems design.
Index Terms-- Distribution Power System, Optimal Multi-
Objective Design.
I. INTRODUCTION
he design of Power Distribution Systems involves the
simultaneous optimization of, frequently competing,
multiple objectives. This optimization problem consists of
determining the optimum number and location of the
distribution substations and the optimum way of connecting
the load nodes to these substations through the
interconnection of feeders [1]. Solving the exact problem
using classical optimization techniques can be difficult
because of the combinatorial nature of the problem [1]. Two
approaches for solving this optimization problem can be
applied. First, there exist classic Multi-Objective optimization
techniques [2], [3]: the Aggregation Methods, the Weighted
Sum Function, Linear Programming, etc. On the other hand
there exist the so-called heuristic algorithms [4]-[7]: Multi-
Objective Evolutionary Algorithms, Tabu Search, Simulated
Annealing, etc.
Evolutionary Algorithms are standard tools when the
concept of Pareto optimality is used to solve a Multi-Objective
optimization problem. They incorporate biologically inspired
operators such as crossover, recombination, mutation and
fitness based selection [8].
In this paper, we present an improved version of the
Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm (NPGA), a Multi-Objective
technique originally developed by Horn, Nafpliotis and
Goldberg [9]. The main objective of this paper is to show the

F. Mendoza and A. Garca are with the Electrical Engineering Department,
Universidad Nacional Experimental Politcnica Antonio Jos de Sucre
(UNEXPO), Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela. (e-mail: fmen@cantv.net).
J.L. Bernal-Agustn is with the Electrical Engineering Department,
University of Zaragoza, Spain (e-mail: jlbernal@unizar.es).
application of the improved NPGA to the Multi-Objective
design of Power Distribution Systems. In future works is
planned to carry out the comparisons with other Multi-
Objective optimization techniques such as SPEA (Strength
Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm) and NSGA (Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm).
The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
mathematical model of the Multi-Objective design problem of
Power Distribution Systems, section III includes a short
description of the basic concepts related to the problems of
Multi-Objective optimisation and the Evolutionary Algorithm
applied, section IV shows the application of the NPGA to a
test case, and section V provides some relevant conclusions.
The results confirm the suitability of NPGA algorithm to
the Power Distribution System planning problem.
II. MULTI-OBJECTIVE DESIGN OF POWER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS
The problem of designing Power Distribution Systems is
studied to select the optimum size and layout of substations
and feeders. It can be expressed as like a Multi-Objective
optimization problem where it is necessary to minimize two
functions: costs and Non-Supplied Energy (NSE) [1].
The cost function, C
NETWORKS
(x), includes fixed, C
FIXED
(x),
and variable cost, C
VARIABLE
(x).
( ) ( ) ( )
NETWORK FIXED VARIABLE
C x C x C x = + (1)
[ ]
[ ]


) , (

) ( ) (
+ ) ( ) ( = ) (
F a
b S
N j i N a
a ij a ij
N b
b k b k
N k
FIXED
Y CF
Y CF x C
(2)
[ ]
[ ] { }
[ ]
2
j) i, (
2 2
) , (
2 2

) ( ) ( + ) ( + ) ( ) (
+ ) ( + ) ( ) (
+ ) ( ) ( = ) (



E k E
N k
k
N
E ji E ij E ij
N j i N a
a ji a ij a ij
N b
b k b k
N k
VARIABLE
X CV X X CV
X X CV
X CV x C
a FE
F a
b S
(3)
Application of the NPGA to the Design of
Power Distribution Systems
Franklin Mendoza, Alexis Garca, and Jos L. Bernal-Agustn, Member, IEEE
T
1-4244-0288-3/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE
2006 IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition Latin America, Venezuela
2
where,
N
FE
= set of routes (between nodes) associated with existing
feeders in the initial network.
N
FP
= set of proposed feeder routes (between nodes) to be
built.
N
FR
= set of routes (between nodes) associated with selected
routes for building feeders. Only the feeder size is a variable.
N
F
= N
FP
N
FR
N
a
= set of proposed feeders sizes to be built.
N
SE
= set of nodes associated with existing substations in the
initial network.
N
SP
= set of nodes associated with proposed locations for
building substations.
N
SR
= set of nodes associated with selected locations for
building substations. Only the substation size is a variable.
N
S
= N
SP
N
SR
N
b
= set of proposed substation sizes to be built.
(i,j) = route between nodes i and j.
(X
k
)
b
= Power flow, in kVA, supplied from node k e N
S
associated with a substation size b.
(X
ij
)
a
= Power flow, in kVA, carried through route (i,j) e N
F
associated with a feeder size a.
(X
ji
)
a
= Power flow, in kVA, carried through route (j,i) e N
F
associated with a feeder size a.
(X
k
)
E
= Power flow, in kVA, supplied from node k associated
with an existing substation in the initial network.
(X
ij
)
E
= Power flow, in kVA, carried through route (i,j),
associated with an existing feeder in the initial network.
(X
ji
)
E
= Power flow, in kVA, carried through route (j,i),
associated with an existing feeder in the initial network.
(CV
ij
)
E
= Variable cost coefficient of an existing feeder in the
initial network, on route (i,j).
(CV
ij
)
a
= Variable cost coefficient of a feeder to be built with
size a, on route (i,j).
(CF
ij
)
a
= Fixed cost of a feeder to be built with size a, on
route (i,j).
(CV
k
)
E
= Variable cost coefficient of an existing substation in
the initial network, in the node k.
(CV
k
)
b
= Variable cost coefficient of a substation with size b,
in the node k.
(CF
k
)
b
= Fixed cost of a substation to be built with size b, in
the node k.
(Y
k
)
b
=1, if substation with size b associated with node k e
(N
SP
) is built. Otherwise, it is equal to 0.
(Y
ij
)
a
=1, if feeder with size a associated with route (i,j) e
(N
FP
) is built. Otherwise, it is equal to 0.
The reliability function that can be expressed by the NSE:

1 = ) (
= ) (
n
i
i
j m j
j j
p r x NSE
(4)
where, n is the number of load nodes,
j
is the failure rate
of element j, r
j
is its average outage time and p
i
is the load at
node i affected for the failure [2].
The Multi-Objective problem can be formulated as:
[ ]
min ( ) ( ), ( )
NETWORKS
f x C x NSE x =
(5)
Subject to technical constraints, which are the Kirchhoffs
current law constraints for all the nodes, the capacity
constraints for the feeders and substations, and the voltage
drop constraints. In the algorithm proposed in this paper the
verification of the technical constrains in each possible
solution is verified carrying out a power flow analysis and
rejecting the solutions that do not comply with them. A
current injection method for power flow calculations was
implemented for this work.
III. DEVELOPED ALGORITHM
A. Pareto Optimality Concepts
Concepts related to Pareto optimality are used as a
foundational tool in developing MOEAs. Therefore, we define
the general concepts of Pareto Dominance, Pareto Optimality,
Pareto Optimal Set and Pareto Front as they appear in [10].
1) Pareto Dominance: A vector u = (u
1
,u
2
,,u
k
) is said to
dominate v = (v
1
,v
2
,,v
k
) (denoted by u v) if and only if
u is partially less than v, i.e., i e {1, 2,,k}, u
i
s v
i
. -i
e {1, 2,,k}: u
i
< v
i
.
2) Pareto Optimality: A solution xeO is said to be Pareto
optimal with respect to O if and only if there is no x e O
for which v = F(x) = (f
1
(x),f
2
(x),,f
k
(x)) dominates u =
F(x) = (f
1
(x),f
2
(x),,f
k
(x)).
3) Pareto Optimal Set: For a given MOP F(x), the Pareto
optimal set (P*) is defined as:
)} ( ) ' ( : ' | { : * x F x F x x P O e - O e = (6)
4) Pareto Front: For a given MOP F(x) and Pareto optimal
set P*, the Pareto front (PF*) is defined as:
*} | )) ( ),..., ( ), ( ( ) ( { : *
2 1
P x x f x f x f x F u PF
k
e = = = (7)
Considering the previous definitions, a solution is non-
dominated by Pareto Optimal Criteria [10], if the
corresponding objective vector cannot be improved in any
dimension without degrading another. The solution set of a
Multi-Objective optimization problem consists of all non-
dominated solutions and is known as Pareto Optimal Set or
Pareto Optimal Front.
B. Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm
Evolutionary Algorithms are based on the use of processes
observable in nature: crossing, mutation, evolution, adaptation
to the environment, etc., applying these concepts to the
solutions of a problem, assigning fitness to each one of the
possible solutions [8]. The fitness measures the quality of a
possible solution. The basic characteristics of the Evolutionary
Algorithms implemented (coding, evaluation function,
3
crossing method, mutation, etc.) are equal to those used in
another work [6]. The particular characteristics of the Multi-
Objective Evolutionary Algorithm used in this research work
(NPGA) are detailed as follows.
The NPGA was initially proposed in [9]. As others
MOEAs, this algorithm uses a selection scheme based on
Pareto dominance principles and tournament selection. In this
case, two individuals are randomly selected as possible
candidates, and between both the winner solution is obtained.
The winner solution is selected for the crossover operator. In
tournament selection, a set of individuals is randomly selected
from the current population and the best of this subset is
placed in the next population. The selection pressure is
controlled by the sample size, t
dom
. The performance of NPGA
is sensitive to amount of selection pressure. A good value of
t
dom
is around 10% to provide a tight and complete
distribution, and decrease the convergence period comparing
to no sampling. Higher values of t
dom
cause the algorithm
converges to a small portion of the Pareto front.
The tournament selection is carried out as follows.
Consider a set of N population members. The following
procedure can be used to find the non-dominated set of
solutions:
Step 1: Begin with G = 0. G is the counter of generations
(iterations).
Step 2: Select randomly two candidates for selection (x
1
and
x
2
).
Step 3: Select randomly a comparison set of individuals from
the population.
Step 4: Compare each candidate, x
1
and x
2
, against each
individual of the comparison set for domination.
Step 5: If one candidate is dominated by the comparison set
while the other is not, then select the later for
reproduction and go to Step 7, else proceed to Step 6.
Step 6: If neither or both candidates are dominated by the
comparison set, then use Fitness Sharing to choose
the winner.
Step 7: If G = Gen_max is reached, stop selection procedure,
else set G=G +1 and go to Step 2.
Fig. 1 summarizes the basic steps of the developed NPGA.
If a given solution is dominated at least by some other,
then it is named dominated solution. In this paper, the
dominated solutions are classified as follows: if a solution is
only dominated by another, then it is classified as solution of
degree 1; if it is dominated by two other solutions, then it is
named solution of degree 2; and so on. The dominated
solutions of grade 1 are better than those of grade 2 but worse
than the non-dominated ones, and so on. A range has been
assigned to the solutions. By example, if there exist N
nodom
non-dominated solutions, then these solutions have the ranges
from 1 to N
nodom
. This range is assigned considering only one
of the two objective functions (costs). The dominated
solutions of degree 1 and the dominated solutions of degree 2
are successively ordered with the same approach as the above
mentioned. The dominated solution of grade 1 that possesses
lower cost has the range N
nodom
+1, and so on. Afterwards, the
aptitude [6] for the solution of range i is obtained as:
1
1
( 1 )
N
j
Range of the worst solution i
Range of the worst solution j
=
+
+
_
(8)
1
1
N
j
Aptitude of solution j
=
=
_
(9)
Fitness Sharing is used to promote diversity in the solution
space. In [11] can be found the main principles of Fitness
Sharing.
In the research work presented in this paper, the Fitness
Sharing applied to the NPGA is explained as follows.
Step 1: Begin with k=1.
Step 2: Compute a normalised Euclidean distance measure
with another solution k in the current population:
2
( ) ( )
max min
1
i k M
m m
ik
m m m
f f
d
f f
=
| |
=
|

\ .
_
(10)
where M is the number of objectives in the problem.
The parameters
max
m
f
and
min
m
f
are the maximum and
the minimum of the m
th
objective in the current
population.
) ( i
m
f
and
) ( k
m
f
are the objective values
for the m
th
objective .
Step 3: This distance d
ik
is compared with a prespecified niche
radius
share
and the following sharing function value
is computed as:
2
,
,
,
, if 1
( )
0, otherwise
i k
i k share
i k
share
d
d
Sh d
o
o

| |
s
|
=

\ .

(11)
Step 4: Set k=k+1. If k N, go to step 2, else calculate niche
count for the candidate i:
,
1
( )
N
i i k
j
m Sh d
=
=
_
(12)
Step 5: Repeat the above steps for the second candidate.
Step 6: Compare m
1
and m
2
. If m
1
<m
2
, then choose the first
candidate, else choose the second candidate.
4
Start
Load data files
Add the winner
candidate to the population
Mutation
Initial population is randomly
generated and evaluated
Crossover
G = 1
Fitness
Sharing
G = G + 1
One candidate
dominates the
comparison set?
G < Gen_max ?
Select the solution
From Pareto set.
End
Population
filled?
Select randomly two candidates
and the comparison set
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the developed algorithm.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the sake of simplicity, the following conditions apply
in this paper:
i) Only a peak load for a planning period of one year is
considered.
ii) The feeder configuration is known.
iii) The substation location is known.
In Fig. 2 the test system is shown. The sizes of the existing
distribution substations are 20 MVA (nodes A, B and B) in 20
kV. The distribution system consists of 18 demand nodes, 3
substations and 28 routes, all of which could be used to build
feeders [12]. Table I gives the annual peak power demands of
the distribution network nodes, and we have proposed two
feeder sizes, LA110 and LA56.
That network is used to illustrate the performance of
NPGA algorithm in the Multi-Objective optimal design of
electrical distribution systems. The optimizations have been
carried out using the NPGA parameters summarized in Table
II.
Initially, the effect of comparison set size on the proposed
approach performance is investigated. The effectiveness of the
proposed approach to produce a representative Pareto-optimal
front is examined for different sizes starting from a size of 5 to
20% of the population size. Fig. 3 shows the Pareto-optimal
front with different comparison set sizes. It is clear that the
performance is degraded with the increase of comparison set
size. Horn and Nafpliotis [9] illustrate the effects of t
dom
over
Pareto front. It was observed that 10% size gives a satisfactory
performance of the proposed approach.
2
3
12
1
14
18
5
9
A
4
16
13
6
17
15
B
C
10
7
11
8
Demand Node
Substation
Fig. 2. Possible routes for the distribution feeder and location of substations in
the test system.
TABLE I
POWER DEMAND REQUIREMENTS, IN KVA.
Node Demand Node Demand
1 3870 10 2230
2 840 11 2050
3 2780 12 990
4 340 13 1180
5 330 14 2520
6 1000 15 1620
7 4050 16 940
8 650 17 2200
9 1230 18 1890
TABLE II
PARAMETERS FOR THE NPGA
Parameters
Population size 500
Crossover probability 0.3
Mutation probability 0.05
Gen max 100
t
dom
5%, 10%, 20%
Fig. 3. Pareto-optimal front with different comparison set sizes.
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
($ x 10
6
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Cos
t
dom
= 10%
t
dom
= 5%
t
dom
= 20%
NS
(kWh x 10
4
)
5
Fig. 4 shows the Pareto-optimal front size for t
dom
= 10%.
This figure shows the best results of cost and not supplied
energy for the test systems.
Fig.4. Pareto-optimal front with t
dom
=10%.
TABLE III
SELECTED SOLUTION FOR TEST CASE (T
DOM
=10%)
Reserve Feeders Cost ($) NSE (kWh)
Radial 0 2460960.59 29472.7
Max-min 7 2828065.91 3049.3
2
3
12
1
14
18
5
9
A
4
16
13
6
17
15
B
C
10
7
11
8
Demand Node
Substation
LA110
LA56
Reserve feeder
Fig. 5. Max-min best solution with t
dom
=10%.
After analyzing the set of non-dominated solutions, the
planner can select the optimal one, either by considering the
most satisfactory values of the two objectives, or by selecting
a solution based on the application of a methodology such as
the max-min approach [7]. Applying the max-min method the
solutions marked in Fig. 4 as max-min best solution NPGA
should be selected. Table III shows the best radial solution
(without reserve feeders) and the Max-min best solution,
using t
dom
= 10%.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the test distribution system with 18 demand
nodes, 3 substations and 28 routes is considered to investigate
the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The most
important aspects of the proposed approach are:
1) Any number of objectives can be considered. In this
work only two have been optimized, but more can be added to
the optimization problem.
2) The result of the Multi-Objective design is a set of
feasible solutions, which allows the designer to select the most
adequate according to his interests.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] J. L. Bernal-Agustn, Application of genetic algorithms to the optimal
design of power distribution systems, Ph.D. dissertation (in Spanish),
Dept. Elect. Eng., University of Zaragoza. Spain. 1998.
[2] S. Bhowmik, S. K. Goswami, P. K. Bhattacherjee, An LP-Based
Multiobjetive Distribution Systems Planning Using Goal Attainment
Method, Electrical Power Components and Systems, vol. 2, no. 5, pp.
479-490, May 2001.
[3] Y. Tang, Power distribution system planning with reliability modeling
and optimization, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 11, no 1,
pp. 181-189. Feb. 199.6
[4] V. Miranda, J. V. Ranito, L. M. Proenca, Genetic algorithms in optimal
multistage distribution network planning, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 9, no 4, pp. 1927-1933. Nov. 1994.
[5] V. Neiname, On Development Planning of Electricity Distribution
Networks, Ph.D. dissertation. Royal Institute of Technology.
Stockholm. 2001.
[6] I. J. Ramrez-Rosado, J.L. Bernal-Agustn, Reliability and cost
Optimization for Distribution Networks Expansion Using an
Evolutionary Algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16,
no 1, pp. 111-118. Feb. 2001.
[7] I. J. Ramirez-Rosado, J.A. Dominguez-Navarro, Possibilistic model
based on fuzzy sets for the multiobjective optimal planning of electric
power distribution networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 19, no. 4. pp. 1801-1810. Nov. 2004.
[8] T. Bck, D. B. Fogel, Z. Michalewicz, Evolutionary Computation 1:
Basic Algorithms and Operators, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol
and Philadelphia, p. 339, 2000.
[9] J. Horn, N. Nafpliotis, D.E. Goldberg. A niched Pareto genetic
algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Proceedings of the First
IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE World Congress
on Computational Intelligence, vol. 1, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Service
Center; 1994, p. 6772.
[10] C. A. Coello, D. A. V. Veldhuizen, G. B. Lamont, Evolutionary
Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, Kluwer Academic /
Plenum Publishers, New York, p. 576, 2002.
[11] S. W. Mahfoud. Niching methods for genetic algorithms. PhD Thesis.
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign; 1995.
[12] T. Gonen, I. J. Ramirez-Rosado, Review of distribution systems
planning models: a model for optimal multistage planning. IEE
Proceedings, vol. 133, no. 7, November1986.
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Franklin Mendoza received his MSc degree in Electrical Engineering from
the Universidad Nacional Politcnica Antonio Jos de Sucre UNEXPO-
(Venezuela) in 1994. In 1990 he joined the UNEXPO where he is Professor
Agregado. Currently he is completing doctoral studies in the University of
Zaragoza. His investigations are focused towards the area of optimization of
power distribution systems by applying evolutionary algorithms.
Alexis Garca is students of electrical engineer in the Universidad Nacional
Politcnica Antonio Jos de Sucre UNEXPO- (Venezuela). His current area
of interest involves applying computer algorithms to solve problems related to
power systems.
Jos L. Bernal-Agustn (M04) received his Ph.D. degree in Electrical
Engineering from the University of Zaragoza (Spain) in 1998. In 1991, he
joined the University of Zaragoza, where he is, currently, Profesor Titular. His
current interest areas are applications of evolutionary algorithms in electrical
power systems, power distribution networks design, electric markets and
renewable energy sources.
245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
(kWh x 10
4
)
Cost ($ x 10
4
)
NS
!
t
dom
=10%
Max-min best solution
Cost = 2828065.91$
ENS = 3049.3 kWh