Optimal Power Flow by Enhanced Genetic Algorithm
Abstract—This paper presents an enhanced genetic
algorithm (EGA) for the solution of the optimal power
flow (OPF) with both continuous and discrete control
variables. The continuous control variables modeled
are unit active power outputs and generator-bus
voltage magnitudes, while the discrete ones are
transformer-tap settings and switchable shunt devices.
A number of functional operating constraints, such as
branch flow limits,load bus voltage magnitude limits,
and generator reactive capabilities, are included as
penalties in the GA fitness function (FF). Advanced
and problem-specific operators are introduced in
order to enhance the algorithm’s efficiency and
accuracy. Numerical results on ieee test system are
presented and comparision of results with normal
genetic algorithm and enhanced genetic algorithm are
shown
NOMENCLATURE
θ Bus voltage angle vector.
UL Load (PQ) bus voltage magnitude vector.
PG Unit active power output vector.
UG Generation (PV) bus voltage magnitude
vector.
t Transformer tap settings vector.
bsh Bus shunt admittance vector.
X System state vector.
U System control vector.
A hat above vectors and denotes that the entry
corresponding to the slack bus is missing. For
simplicity of notation, it is assumed that there is
only one generating unit connected on a bus.
I. INTRODUCTION
S INCE its introduction as network constrained
economic dispatch by Carpentier and its definition
as optimal power flow (OPF) by Dommel and
Tinney , the OPF problem has been the subject of
intensive research. The OPF optimizes a power
system operating objective function (such as the
operating cost of thermal resources) while satisfying
a set of system operating constraints, including
constraints dictated by the electric network. OPF has
been widely used in power system operation and
planning . After the electricity sector restructuring,
OPF has been used to assess the spatial variation of
electricity prices and as a congestion management
and pricing tool .In its most general formulation, the
OPF is a nonlinear, nonconvex,large-scale,static
optimization problem with both continuous and
discrete control variables. Even in the absence of
nonconvex unit operating cost functions, unit
prohibited operating zones, and discrete
controlvariables, the OPF problem is nonconvex due
o the existence of the nonlinear (AC) power flow
equality constraints. The presence of discrete control
variables, such as switchable shunt devices,
transformer tap positions, and phase shifters, further
complicates the problem solution.
The literature on OPF is vast, and [1] presents
the major contributions in this area. Mathematical
programming approaches, such as nonlinear
programming (NLP), quadratic programming (QP)
[2], [3], and linear programming (LP) [4],[5], have
been used for the solution of the OPF problem.
Some methods, instead of solving the original
problem, solve the problem’s Karush–Kuhn–Tucker
(KKT)optimalityconditions.For equality-constrained
optimization problems, the KKT conditions are a set
of nonlinear equations, which can be solved using a
Newton-type algorithm. In Newton OPF [6],the
inequality constraints are added as quadratic penalty
terms to the problem objective, multiplied by
appropriate penalty multipliers. Interior point (IP)
methods,convert the inequality constraints to
equalities by the introduction of nonnegative slack
variables. A logarithmic barrier function of the slack
variables is then added to the objective function,
multiplied by a barrier parameter, which is gradually
reduced to zero during the solution process. The
unlimited point algorithm uses a transformation of
the slack and dual variables of the inequality
constraints which converts the OPF problem KKT
conditions to a set of nonlinear equations, thus
avoiding the heuristic rules for barrier parameter
reduction required by IP methods.
OPF programs based on mathematical
programming approaches are used daily to solve
very large OPF problems.However, they are not
guaranteed to converge to the global optimum of the
general nonconvex OPF problem, although there
exists some empirical evidence on the uniqueness of
the OPF solution within the domain of interest To
avoid the prohibitive computational requirements of
mixed-integer programming, discrete control
variables are initially treated as continuous, and
post-processing discretization logic is subsequently
applied Whereas the effects of discretization on
load tap changing transformers are small and usually
negligible, the rounding of switchable shunt devices
may lead to voltage infeasibility, especially when
the discrete VAR steps are large, and requires
special logic.The handling of nonconvex OPF
objective functions, as well as the unit prohibited
operating zones, also present problems to
mathematical programming OPF approaches.
Recent attempts to overcome the limitations of
the mathematical programming approaches and
genetic algorithms (GAs) [7], [8].
In [7], a simple genetic algorithm (SGA) is
used for OPF solution. The control variables
modeled are generator active power outputs and
voltages, shunt devices, and transformer taps.
Branch flow, reactive generation, and voltage
magnitude constraints are treated as quadratic
penalty terms in the GAfitness function (FF).Tokeep
the Ga chromosome size small, only a 4-
bitchromosome area is used for the encoding of each
control variable. A sequential GA solution scheme
is employed to achieve acceptable control variable
resolution. Test results on the IEEE 30-bus system,
comprising 25 control variables, are presented.
In [8], a GA is used to solve the optimal
power dispatch problem for a multinode auction
market. The GA maximizes the total participants’
welfare, subject to network flow and transport
limitation constraints. The nodal real and reactive
power injections that clear the market are selected as
the problem control variables. A GA with two
advanced operators, namely, elitism and hill
climbing, is used. A 10-bit chromosome area is
devoted to each control variable. Test results on a
17-node, 34-control variable system are presented.
This paper presents an enhanced genetic
algorithm (EGA) for the solution of the OPF. The
control variables and constraints included in the
OPF and the penalty method treatment of the
functional operating constraints are similar to the
ones in [7] with the following improvements:
switchable shunt devices and transformer taps are
modeled as discrete control variables. Variable
binary string length is used for different types of
control variables, so as to achieve the desired
resolution for each type of control variable, without
unnecessarily increasing the size of the GA
chromosome. In addition to the basic genetic
operators of the SGA used in [7] and the advanced
ones used in [8], problem-specific operators,
inspired by the nature of the OPF problem, have
been incorporated in our EGA. With the
incorporation of the problem-specific operators, the
GA can solve larger OPF problems. Test results on
IEEE 30-buses system with 24 control variables
demonstrates the improvement achieved with the aid
of problem-specific operators.
II. OPTIMAL POWER FLOW PROBLEM FORMULATION
The OPF problem can be formulated as a
mathematical optimization problem as follows:
Minƒ(x,u) (1)
S.t.g(x,u) = 0 (2)
h(x,u) ≤ 0 (3)
u∈U (4)
where
x=[ θ
Τ
ULT ] T . (5)
u=[PG UGT tT bshT ]
T
(6)
The equality constraints (2) are the nonlinear power
flow equations. The inequality constraints (3) are
the functional operating constraints, such as
• branch flow limits (MVA, MW or A);
• load bus voltage magnitude limits;
• generator reactive capabilities;
• slack bus active power output limits.
Constraints (4) define the feasibility region of the
problem
control variables such as
• unit active power output limits;
• generation bus voltage magnitude limits;
• transformer-tap setting limits (discrete values);
• bus shunt admittance limits (continuous or discrete
control).
III. GENETIC ALGORITHMS
GAs are general purpose optimization algorithms
based on the mechanics of natural selection and
genetics. They operate on string structures
(chromosomes), typically a concatenated list of
binary digits representing a coding of the control
parameters (phenotype) of a given problem.
Chromosomes themselves are composed of genes.
The real value of a control parameter, encoded
in a gene, is called an allele..
GAs are an attractive alternative to other
optimization methods because of their robustness.
There are three major differences between GAs and
conventional optimization algorithms. First, GAs
operate on the encoded string of the problem
parameters rather than the actual parameters of the
problem. Each string can be thought of as a
chromosome that completely describes one
candidate solution to the problem. Second, GAs
use a population of points rather than a single point
in their search. This allows the GA to explore
several areas of the search space simultaneously,
reducing the probability of finding local optima.
Third, GAs do not require any prior knowledge,
space limitations, or special properties of the
function to be optimized, such as convexity,. They
only require the evaluation of smoothness, the so-
called fitness function (FF) to assign a quality value
to every solution produced.
Assuming an initial random population produced
and evaluated, genetic evolution takes place by
means of three basic genetic operators:
1) parent selection;
2) crossover;
3) mutation.
Parent selection is a simple procedure whereby two
chromosomes are selected from the parent
population based on their fitness value. Solutions
with high fitness values have a high probability
of contributing new offspring to the next generation.
The selection rule used in our approach is a simple
roulette-wheel selection [9]. Crossover is an
extremely important operator for the GA.It is
responsible for the structure recombination
(information exchange between mating
chromosomes) and the convergence speed of the GA
and is usually applied with high probability (0.6–
0.9). The chromosomes of the two parents selected
are combined to form new chromosomes that inherit
segments of information stored in parent
chromosomes.
Fig. 1. Simple genetic algorithm (SGA).
Until now, many crossover schemes, such as single
point,multipoint, or uniform crossover have been
proposed in the literature. Uniform crossover [9] as
been used in our implementation. While crossover is
the main genetic operator exploiting the information
included in the current generation, it does not
produce new information. Mutation is the operator
responsible for the injection of new information.
With a small probability, random bits of the
offspring chromosomes flip from 0 to 1 and vice
versa and giveconstraints . new characteristics that
do not exist in the parent population . In our
approach, the mutation operator is applied with a
relatively small Probability (0.0001-0.001) to every
bit of the
chromosome.
The FF evaluation and genetic evolution take
part in an iterative procedure, which ends when a
maximum number of generations is reached, as
shown in Fig. 1. When applying GAs to solve a
particular optimization problem (OPF in our case),
two main issues must be addressed:
1) the encoding, i.e., how the problem physical
decision variables are translated to a GA
chromosome and its inverse operator, decoding ;
2) the definition of the FF to be maximized by the
GA (the GA FF is formed by an appropriate
transformation of the initial problem objective
function augmented by penalty terms that penalize
the violation of the problem)
Fig. 2. GA chromosome structure.
IV. GENETIC ALGORITHM SOLUTION TO
OPTIMAL POWER FLOW
A. Encoding
The chromosome is formed as shown in Fig. 2.
There are four chromosome regions (one for each
set of control variables),namely, 1) PG ;2) UG ; 3)t
and 4) bsh . Encoding is performed using different
gene-lengths for each set of control variables,
depending on the desired accuracy. The decoding of
a chromosome to the problem physical variables is
performed as follows:
1) continuous controls taking values in the
interval [uimin,uimax]
ui = uimin +( uimax _− uimin).K/(2Nui -1) (7)
2) discrete controls taking values ui 1, ui 2….., ui m
ui = ui m with m=int[Μ/(2Nui).K+1.5]
and log2M≤ Nui ≤ log2M + 1
(8)
where is the decimal number to which the binary
number in a gene is decoded and is the gene length
(number of bits) used for encoding control variable .
B. Fitness Function (FF)
GAs are usually designed so as to maximize the
FF, which is a measure of the quality of each
candidate solution. The objective of the OPF
problem is to minimize the total operating cost (1).
Therefore, a transformation is needed to convert
the cost objective of the OPF problem to an
appropriate FF to be maximized by the GA. The
OPF functional operating constraints(3) are included
in the GA solution by augmenting the GA FF by
appropriate penalty terms for each violated
functional constraint. Constraints on the control
variables (4) are automatically satisfied by the
selected GA encoding/decoding scheme (7) and (8).
Therefore, the GA FF is formed as follows:

NG NG
FF= A /( ∑ Fi( PGi ) + ∑ wj.Penj) (9)
i=1 i=1
Penj=| hj(x,u)|. H (hj(x,u) ) (10)
where
FF fitness function;
A constant;
Fi( PGi ) fuel cost function of unit (in our case, a
quadratic function);
wj weighting factor of functional operating
constraint;
Penj penalty function for functional operating
Constraint;
hj(x,u) violation of jth functional operating
constraint, if positive;
H(.) Heaviside (step) function;
NG number of units;
NC number of functional operating
constraints.
Given a candidate solution to the problem,
represented by a chromosome, the FF is computed
as follows.
Step 1) Decode the chromosome to determine the
actual control variables, , using (7) and (8).
The computed control vector satisfies, by
design, constraints (4).
Step 2) Solve the power flow (2) to compute the
state vector,
Step3) Determine the violated functional constraints
(3) and compute associated penalty functions
(10).
Step 4) Compute the FF using (9).
In Step 2, a simple fast decoupled load flow (FDLF)
is used with no PV-PQ bus-type switching, since
generator reactive capabilities are incorporated in
the functional operating constraints and no local
control adjustments, such as tap and switchable
shunts , since the settings of these controls are
determined by the GA. Therefore, only a few load
flow iterations are required for convergence. The
FDLF Β ’ and Β ” matrices are formed and
actorized only once in the beginning—the effect of
the changes of shunt admittances on the matrix is
neglected. In case that, due to the random (yet
within limits) initial selection of the control
variables, the load flow does not converge within a
predefined number of iterations (set to 8), large
penalty terms, proportional to the maximum
power mismatch, are added to the FF.
C. Advanced and Problem-Specific Genetic
Operators
One of the most important issues in the genetic
evolution is the effective rearrangement of the
genotype information. In the SGA crossover is the
main genetic operator responsible for the
exploitation of information while mutation brings
new nonexistent bit structures. It is widely
recognized that the SGA scheme is capable of
locating the neighborhood of the optimal or near-
optimal solutions, but, in general, requires a large
number of generations to converge. This problem
becomes more intense for large-scale optimization
problems with difficult search spaces and lengthy
chromosomes, where the possibility for the SGA to
get trapped in local optima increases and the
convergence speed of the SGA decreases. At this
point, a suitable combination of the basic,
advanced,and problem-specific genetic operators
must be introduced in order to enhance the
performance of the GA. Advanced
Fig. 3. Gene swap operator.
and problem-specific genetic operators usually
combine local search techniques and expertise
derived from the nature of the problem.
A set of advanced and problem-specific
genetic operators has been added to the SGA in
order to increase its convergence speed and improve
the quality of solutions. Our interest was focused on
constructing simple yet powerful enhanced genetic
operators that effectively explore the problem search
space. The advanced features included in our GA
implementation are as follows.
1) Fitness Scaling: In order to avoid early
domination of extraordinary strings and to
encourage a healthy competition among
equals, a scaling of the fitness of the
population is necessary [9]. In our
approach, the fitness is scaled by a linear t
transformation.
2) Elitism: Elitism ensures that the best solution
found thus far is never lost when moving
from one generation to another.The best
solution of each generation replaces a
randomly selected chromosome in the new
generation [10].
2) Hill Climbing: In order to increase the GA
search speed at smooth areas of the search
space a hill-climbing operator is
introduced, which perturbs a randomly
selected control variable. The modified c
chromosome is accepted if there is an
increase in FF value;otherwise, the old
chromosome remains unchanged
This operator is applied only to
the best chromosome (elite) of every
generation [8].
In addition to the above advanced features, which
are called “advanced” despite their wide use in most
recent GA implementations to distinguish between
the SGA and our EGA, operators specific to the
OPF problem have been added.
 All problem-specific operators introduce
random modification to all chromosomes of a new
generation. If the modified chromosome proves to
have better fitness, it replaces the original one in the
new population. Otherwise, the original
chromosome is retained in the new population. All
problem-specific operators are applied with a
probability of 0.2. The following problem-specific
operators have been used.
1) Gene Swap Operator (GSO): This operator
randomly selects two genes in a chromosome and
swaps their values, as shown in Fig. 3. This operator
swaps the active power output of two units, the
voltage magnitude of two generation buses, etc.
Swapping among different types of control variables
is not allowed.
Fig. 4. Gene copy operator.
Fig. 5. Gene inverse operator.
Fig. 6. Gene max-min operator.
2) Gene Copy Operator (GCO): This operator
randomly selects one gene in a chromosome and
with equal probability copies its value to the
predecessor or the successor gene of the same
control type, as shown in Fig. 4. This operator
has been introduced in order to force consecutive
controls (e.g., identical units on the same bus) to
operate at the same output level.
3) Gene Inverse Operator (GIO): This operator acts
like a sophisticated mutation operator. It randomly
selects one gene in a chromosome and inverses its
bit-values from one to zero and vice versa, as shown
in Fig. 5. The GIO searches for bit-structures of
improved performance, exploits newareas of the
search space far away from the current solution, and
retains the diversity of the population.
4) Gene Max-Min Operator (GMMO): The GMMO
tries to identify binding control variable upper/lower
limit constraints.It selects a random gene in a
chromosome and, with the same probability (0.5),
fills its area with 1 s or 0 s, as shown in Fig. 6.
D. Enhanced Genetic Algorithm (EGA)
In the EGA, shown in Fig. 7, after the application of
the basic genetic operators (parent selection,
crossover, and mutation) the advanced and problem-
specific operators are applied to produce the new
generation. All chromosomes in the initial
population are created at random (every bit in the
chromosome has equal probability of being
switched ON or OFF). Due to the decoding process
selected [(7) and (8)], the corresponding control
variables of the initial population satisfy their
upper–lower bound or discrete value constraints (4).
However, the initial population candidate solutions
may not satisfy the functional operating constraints
(3) or even the load flow constraints (2) since the
random,within limits, selection of the control
variables may lead to load flow divergence (as
already discussed in Section I V-B). Population
statistics computed for the new generation include
maximum, minimum, and average fitness values and
the 90% percentile.
Fig. 7. Enhanced genetic algorithm (EGA).
V. TEST RESULTS
In this section, the proposed EGA solution of the
OPF is evaluated using A. IEEE 30-Bus System
It has 41-branch system . It has a total of 24 control
variables as follows: five unit active power outputs,
six generator-bus voltage magnitudes, four
transformer-tap settings, and nine bus shunt
admittances. The input data for IEEE 30-Bus
System are given in appendix ‘A’ .The gene length
for unit power outputs is 12 bits and for generator
voltage magnitudes is 8 bits. They are both treated
as continuous controls. The transformer-tap settings
can take 17 discrete values (each one is encoded
using 5 bits): the lower and Fig. 8. FF comparison
for IEEE 30-bus system. upper limits are 0.9 p.u.
and 1.1 p.u., respectively, and the step size is 0.0125
p.u. The bus shunt admittances can take six discrete
values (each one is encoded using 3 bits): the lower
and upper limits are 0.0 p.u. and 0.05 p.u.,
respectively, and the step is 0.01 p.u. (on system
MVA basis). The GA population size is taken equal
to 60, the maximum number of generations is 200,
and crossover and mutation are applied with initial
probability 0.9 and 0.001, respectively. Two sets of
20 test runs were performed; the first (SGA) with
only the basic GA operators and the second (EGA)
with all operators, including advanced and problem-
specific operators. The FF evolution of the best of
these runs is shown in
Fig. 8. FF comparison for IEEE 30-bus
system
The best and worst solutions of the second set of 20
runs (EGA) are shown in Table I. The operating
costs of the best and worst solutions are 802.73$/h
and 802.34 $/h, respectively, The differences
between the values of the control variables in the
best and worst solutions are significant. The
operating cost of all EGA-OPF solutions is slightly
less as shown in Table below
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A GA solution to the OPF problem has been
presented and applied to small and medium size
power systems. The main advantage of the GA
solution to the OPF problem is its modeling
flexibility: nonconvex unit cost functions, prohibited
unit operating zones, discrete control variables, and
complex, nonlinear constraints can be easily
modeled. Another advantage is that it can be easily
coded to work on parallel computers. The main
disadvantage of GAs is that they are stochastic
algorithms and the solution they provide to the OPF
problem is not guaranteed to be the optimum.
Another disadvantage is that the execution time and
the quality of the provided solution deteriorate with
the increase of the chromosome length, i.e., the OPF
problem size. The applicability of the GA solution
to large-scale OPF problems of systems with several
thousands of nodes, utilizing the strength of parallel
computers, has yet to be demonstrated.
REFERENCES
[1] J. A. Momoh, M. E. El-Hawary, and R. Adapa, “A review of
selected optimal power flow literature to 1993,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., pt. I and II, vol. 14, pp. 96–111, Feb. 1999.
[2] G. F. Reid and L. Hasdorf, “Economic dispatch using
quadratic programming,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-92, pp. 2015–2023,
[3] R. C. Burchett, H. H. Happ, and K. A. Wirgau, “Large-scale
optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-101, pp. 3722–3732, Oct. 1982.
[4] B. Stott and E. Hobson, “Power system security control
calculation using linear programming,” IEEE Trans. Power
Apparat. Syst., pt. I and II, vol. PAS-97, Sept./Oct. 1978.
[5] R. Mota-Palomino and V. H. Quintana, “A penalty function-
method for solving power system constrained economic operation
problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.,June 1984.
[6] D. I. Sun, B. Ashley, B. Brewer, A. Hughes, andW. F.
Tinney, “Optimal power flow by Newton approach,” IEEE
Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-103, pp. 2864–2880,
1984..
[7] L. L. Lai, J. T. Ma, R. Yokoyama, and M. Zhao, “Improved
genetic algorithms for optimal power flow under both normal and
contingent operation states,” Elec. Power Energy Syst., no.
5,1997.
[8] T. Numnonda and U. D. Annakkage, “Optimal power
dispatch in multinode electricity market using genetic algorithm,”
Elec. Power Syst. Res., vol. 49, pp. 211–220, 1999.
[9] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search: Addison-
Wesley, 1989. crossover landscape,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Genetic Algorithms, 1989,
[10] L. Davis, Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. New York: Van
Nostrand, 1991.
.
 APPENDIX ‘A’
IEEE 30 BUS SYSTEM
No.of buses : 30
No.of lines :41
No.of generators : 6

Bus data:

Bus Type Pgen Qgen Pload Qload Vspecified Qmin Qmax Yshunt
1 Slack 1.3848 -0.0279 0 0 1.05 0 0
0
2 P-V 0.5756 0.0247 0.217 0.127 1.0338 -0.2 0.6
0
3 P-Q 0 0 0.024 0.012 1 0 0
0
4 P-Q 0 0 0.076 0.016 1 0 0
0
5 P-V 0.2456 0.2257 0.942 0.19 1.0058 -0.15 0.625
0
6 P-Q 0 0 0 0.3 1 0 0
0
7 P-Q 0 0 0.228 0 1 0 0
0
8 P-V 0.35 0.3484 0.3 0.2 1.023 -0.15 0.5
0
9 P-Q 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0
10 P-Q 0 0 0.058 0.75 1 0 0
0.19
11 P-V 0.1793 0.3078 0 0 1.0913 -0.1 0.4
0
12 P-Q 0 0 0.112 0.016 1 0 0
0
13 P-V 0.1691 0.3783 0 0.025 1.0883 -0.15 0.45
0
14 P-Q 0 0 0.062 0.018 1 0 0
0
15 P-Q 0 0 0.082 0.058 1 0 0
0
16 P-Q 0 0 0.035 0.009 1 0 0
0
17 P-Q 0 0 0.09 0.034 1 0 0
0
18 P-Q 0 0 0.032 0.007 1 0 0
0
19 P-Q 0 0 0.095 0.112 1 0 0
0
20 P-Q 0 0 0.022 0 1 0 0
0
21 P-Q 0 0 0.175 0.016 1 0 0
0
22 P-Q 0 0 0 0.067 1 0 0
0
23 P-Q 0 0 0.032 0 1 0 0
0
24 P-Q 0 0 0.087 0.023 1 0 0
0.04
25 P-Q 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0
26 P-Q 0 0 0.035 0 1 0 0
0
27 P-Q 0 0 0 0.009 1 0 0
0
28 P-Q 0 0 0 0.019 1 0 0
0
29 P-Q 0 0 0.024 1 0 0
0
30 P-Q 0 0 0.106 1 0 0
0

Pgmax and Pgmin for generators :

Generator bus Pgmin Pgmax

no
1 0.5 2.0
2 0.2 0.8
 5 0.15 0.5
8 0.1 0.35
11 0.1 0.3
3 0.2 0.8

a, b, c constants for generators :

Generator a b c
No
1 0 2 0.00375
2 0 1.75 0.0175
3 0 1 0.0625
4 0 3.25 0.002075
5 0 3 0.025
6 0 3 0.025

Line Data :
Line From bus To bus R X Half line Tap ratio Max
charging
Power (pu)
Suscepta
nce
1 1 2 0.0192 0.0575 0.0264 1 1.3
2 1 3 0.0452 0.1852 0.0204 1 1.3
3 2 4 0.057 0.1737 0.0184 1 0.65
4 3 4 0.0132 0.0379 0.0042 1 1.3
5 2 5 0.0472 0.1983 0.0209 1 1.3
6 2 6 0.0581 0.1763 0.0187 1 0.65
7 4 6 0.0119 0.0414 0.0045 1 0.9
8 5 7 0.046 0.116 0.0102 1 0.7
9 6 7 0.0267 0.082 0.0085 1 1.3
10 6 8 0.012 0.042 0.0045 1 0.32
11 6 9 0 0.208 0 1.0155 0.65
12 6 10 0 0.556 0 0.9629 0.32
13 9 11 0 0.208 0 1 0.65
14 9 10 0 0.11 0 1 0.65
15 4 12 0 0.2560 0 1.0129 0.65
16 12 13 0 0.1400 0 1 0.65
17 12 14 0.1231 0.2559 0 1 0.32
18 12 15 0.0662 0.1304 0 1 0.32
19 12 16 0.0945 0.1987 0 1 0.32
20 14 15 0.2210 0.1997 0 1 0.16
21 16 17 0.0824 0.1923 0 1 0.16
22 15 18 0.1070 0.2185 0 1 0.16
23 18 19 0.0639 0.1292 0 1 0.16
24 19 29 0.0340 0.0680 0 1 0.32
25 10 20 0.0936 0.2090 0 1 0.32
26 10 17 0.0324 0.0845 0 1 0.32
27 10 21 0.0348 0.0749 0 1 0.32
28 10 22 0.0727 0.1499 0 1 0.32
29 21 22 0.0116 0.0236 0 1 0.32
30 15 23 0.1000 0.2020 0 1 0.16
31 22 24 0.1150 0.1790 0 1 0.16
32 23 24 0.1320 0.2700 0 1 0.16
33 24 25 0.1885 0.3292 0 1 0.16
34 25 26 0.2544 0.3800 0 1 0.16
35 25 27 0.1093 0.2087 0 1 0.16
36 27 28 0 0.3960 0 0.9581 0.65
37 27 29 0.2198 0.4153 0 1 0.16
38 27 30 0.3202 0.6027 0 1 0.16
39 29 30 0.2399 0.4533 0 1 0.16
40 8 28 0.0636 0.2000 0.0214 1 0.32
41 6 28 0.0169 0.0599 0.0650 1 0.32