Research Article

Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study

Volume: 22 Number: 1 March 30, 2026
EN

Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study

Abstract

The growing demand and power of modern power systems necessitates an economical and stable operation, and therefore, the Optimal Power Flow (OPF) problem is of heavy research interest. The OPF must be solved efficiently to lower operational costs and ensure system stability. A comprehensive comparative study in this paper compares the performance of five metaheuristic algorithms for solving the fuel cost minimization problem of the OPF problem. Two well-known algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA), and three new ones, Dream Optimization Algorithm (DOA), Newton-Raphson-Based Optimizer (NRBO), and Greylag Goose Optimization (GGO), were tested on the benchmark IEEE 6-bus, 30-bus, and 57-bus systems. The performance of the algorithms was compared in terms of statistical measures of the best cost, mean cost, and standard deviation from ten independent runs. Numerical findings indicate that the performance of algorithms is highly dependent on system size. For the 6-bus case, NRBO had the lowest fuel cost, while PSO had better stability with the lowest standard deviation. In the 30-bus case, NRBO was the most effective algorithm to utilize, having better performance in all aspects measured. In the larger 57-bus system, PSO had the best solution overall but least consistent in performance. This study concludes that there isn't a single best algorithm for all OPF problem sizes, providing an authoritative benchmark that marks the strengths and weaknesses of classical and contemporary metaheuristics across different power system applications.

Keywords

References

  1. [1] Tang, Y., Dvijotham, K., & Low, S. (2017). Real-time optimal power flow. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(6), 2963-2973.
  2. [2] Risi, B. G., Riganti-Fulginei, F., & Laudani, A. (2022). Modern techniques for the optimal power flow problem: State of the art. Energies, 15(17), 6387.
  3. [3] Frank, S., & Rebennack, S. (2016). An introduction to optimal power flow: Theory, formulation, and examples. IIE transactions, 48(12), 1172-1197.
  4. [4] Cain, M. B., O’neill, R. P., & Castillo, A. (2012). History of optimal power flow and formulations. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1, 1-36.
  5. [5] Cabadağ, R. I., Türkay, B. E., & Tunç, A. (2011). Optimal Güç Akışı Çözümlerinde Lineer Programlama ve İç nokta Algoritması Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi, II. Elektrik Tesisat Ulusal Kongresi, 24-27 Kasım 2011, İzmir.
  6. [6] Ebeed, M., Kamel, S., & Jurado, F. (2018). Optimal power flow using recent optimization techniques. In Classical and recent aspects of power system optimization (pp. 157-183). Academic Press.
  7. [7] Altay, E. V., & Altay, O. (2021). Güncel metasezgisel optimizasyon algoritmalarının CEC2020 test fonksiyonları ile karşılaştırılması. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 12(5), 729-741.
  8. [8] Abdel-Basset, M., Abdel-Fatah, L., & Sangaiah, A. K. (2018). Metaheuristic algorithms: A comprehensive review. Computational intelligence for multimedia big data on the cloud with engineering applications, 185-231.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Software Engineering (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

March 30, 2026

Submission Date

June 17, 2025

Acceptance Date

December 9, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 22 Number: 1

APA
Polat, A. B., & Altay, O. (2026). Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, 22(1), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752
AMA
1.Polat AB, Altay O. Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study. CBUJOS. 2026;22(1):121-131. doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752
Chicago
Polat, Alper Buğra, and Osman Altay. 2026. “Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 22 (1): 121-31. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752.
EndNote
Polat AB, Altay O (March 1, 2026) Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 22 1 121–131.
IEEE
[1]A. B. Polat and O. Altay, “Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study”, CBUJOS, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 121–131, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752.
ISNAD
Polat, Alper Buğra - Altay, Osman. “Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science 22/1 (March 1, 2026): 121-131. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752.
JAMA
1.Polat AB, Altay O. Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study. CBUJOS. 2026;22:121–131.
MLA
Polat, Alper Buğra, and Osman Altay. “Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, vol. 22, no. 1, Mar. 2026, pp. 121-3, doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752.
Vancouver
1.Alper Buğra Polat, Osman Altay. Performance Evaluation of PSO, GA, DOA, NRBO, and GGO for Static Optimal Power Flow: A Benchmarking Study. CBUJOS. 2026 Mar. 1;22(1):121-3. doi:10.18466/cbayarfbe.1721752