480
2, MAY 2006
An Initialization Procedure in Solving Optimal
Power Flow by Genetic Algorithm
Mirko Todorovski and Dragoslav Rajičić, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The recently published idea of treating voltage angles
at generator-buses as control variables enables to obtain voltages
at load-buses with less computation. However, application of this
approach in solving the optimal power flow problem by genetic al-
gorithms may be ineffective if starting values of voltage angles are
selected quite randomly. To overcome these difficulties, a new pro-
cedure for selection of an initial set of complex voltages at gener-
ator-buses is proposed in this paper. With this procedure, one can
start the optimization process (i.e., genetic algorithm) with a set of
control variables, causing few or no violations of constraints. The
application of voltage angles at generator-buses as control vari-
ables and the proposed initialization procedure is illustrated on
the IEEE test systems. The obtained results are analyzed and com-
pared with the results from the literature. They are competitive,
with computational time drastically reduced.
Index Terms—Bus admittance matrix, generator-bus modeling,
genetic algorithms (GAs), load flow analysis, optimal power flow
(OPF).
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE minimization of total fuel costs, referred to as eco-
nomic dispatch [1] or optimal power flow problem (OPF)
[2], is one of the ever-actual power system problems. It has been
a subject of intense power system research for more than four
decades, resulting in many relevant publications. In particular,
under the deregulated environment in the electricity industry in
the past few years, the interest in OPF has become even more
pronounced.
Many optimization techniques have been adapted and used
to solve OPF. A review of selected OPF literature until 1993
can be found in [3] and [4], having the applied techniques
classified as nonlinear programming, quadratic programming,
Newton-based solution, linear programming, hybrid versions
of linear programming and integer programming, and interior
point method. The continuous research in this field has led
to many new contributions beyond 1993. Some of the previ-
ously used approaches have been modified and improved (e.g.,
[5]–[9]), and some other techniques have been used, such as
simulated annealing [10], genetic algorithms (GAs) [12]–[16],
neural networks [17]–[20], dual-type method [21], [22], mean
field theory [23], evolutionary programming [24]–[27], tabu
search algorithm [28], particle swarm optimization [29], and
Manuscript received February 15, 2005; revised October 6, 2005. Paper no.
TPWRS-00088-2005.
M. Todorovski is with the Research Center for Energy, Informatics and Ma-
terials, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, Republic of Mace-
donia (e-mail: mirko@manu.edu.mk; t_mirko@yahoo.com).
D. Rajičić is with the University “Sv. Kiril i Metodij,” Skopje, Republic of
Macedonia (e-mail:dragoslav@ieee.org).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2006.873120
0885-8950/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO.
ordinal optimization theory [30]. Many of these techniques
overcome the difficulties in the modeling of complicated cost
functions, discrete control variables, and prohibited unit-op-
erating zones. Some deficiencies in OPF are elaborated on in
[31], and many challenges are discussed in [32].
A specific procedure for initialization and treatment of the
voltage angles at generator-buses as control variables are the
main components of the approach for solving OPF proposed in
this paper.
In order to test the proposed approach, it was applied to
solve OPF by genetic algorithms (GA-OPF). However, this
approach could also be applied in other methods based on sim-
ilar principles as GAs and evolutionary programming. These
methods have the ability to handle any type of the objective
function, variables, and constraints. Computation procedures
of these methods offer not one “ideal” solution but rather a set
of applicable near-optimal solutions, and they are suitable for
parallel computation.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION CONSIDERING POWER FLOW
REQUIREMENTS WITHIN GA
The OPF is a constrained optimization problem requiring
minimization of an objective function, which is the total power
generation cost
(1)
subject to
(2)
(3)
where is the real power output of unit , is the cost function
of unit , and is the total number of units.
The equality constraints (2) are the power flow equations,
while the inequality constraints (3) are due to various limita-
tions. The limitations include lower and upper limits on gen-
erator real and reactive powers (respecting possible prohibited
zones as well), limits on voltage magnitudes, line and trans-
former maximum currents, and sets of possible transformer taps
position and shunt admittances.
The sets of state and control variables, which should
satisfy all constraints, are somewhat different than usual in this
paper. It is well known that four quantities are assigned to each
of the buses in a power network. These quantities are injected
real power, injected reactive power, voltage magnitude, and
voltage angle. In the OPF, the only scheduled bus quantities are
TODOROVSKI AND RAJIČIĆ: INITIALIZATION PROCEDURE IN SOLVING OPF BY GA
the injected real and reactive power at load-buses, and none of
the four bus quantities are scheduled at generator-buses.
The generator-bus treatment influences, to a great extent, both
speed and robustness of any power flow method, and since the
power flow calculations are dominating within the GA-OPF ap-
proach, appropriate attention should be paid to the subject. As
suggested in [34], complex voltages at generator-buses may be
taken as control variables. In such a way, the concept of one
slack bus is abandoned. This is in accordance with the nature
of the OPF, since one cannot know in advance which is the
best slack bus selection. Therefore, in the proposed approach,
the generating unit’s real and reactive power output are state
variables, which should satisfy(2) and (3). Introducing many
buses with known complex voltages ( buses), the number
of unknown complex voltages is smaller, and the conditions in
the network enable to solve the power flow problem with less
computations. As a result, the whole GA-OPF procedure is less
time-consuming.
In this paper, the set of state variables includes generator
outputs (real and reactive), load-bus voltages, line currents, and
transformer currents. The set of control variables consists of
complex voltages at generator-buses, reactive powers of syn-
chronous condensers, transformer tap settings, and shunt de-
vices settings.
III. GAs
A. Problem Encoding
Each control variable is called a gene, while all control vari-
ables integrated into one vector is called a chromosome.
In this paper, we use real-coded GA where each chromosome
consists of four regions, one for each subset of control variables.
Those subsets are generator-bus voltage magnitudes and angles,
synchronous condensers reactive powers, transformer tap set-
tings, and shunt admittances.
The GA always deals with a set of chromosomes called a
population. Transforming chromosomes from a population, we
obtain a new population, i.e., next generation. To do this, we use
three genetic operators: selection, crossover, and mutation.
B. Initialization
Usually, at the beginning of the GA optimization process,
each variable gets a random value from its predefined domain.
However, this very simple initialization procedure was found
insufficient for the GA-OPF approach where generator-bus
voltage angles are taken as control variables. In fact, in more
complex networks, the GA-OPF procedure with randomly
initiated voltage magnitudes and angles may not produce a
feasible solution, even in hundreds of generations. Therefore, it
is reasonable to make a special initialization procedure in which
the knowledge of the power systems will be incorporated.
Since the generator power outputs have well-defined lower
and upper limits, while the voltage angles do not, in the initial-
ization procedure (and nowhere else), we select the real power
outputs and voltage magnitudes at generator buses. Afterwards,
the corresponding voltage angles are calculated.
Following this idea, we developed a practical initialization
procedure, which will be explained in this section.
481
1) Selection of Initial Generator Power Outputs: Assume
that the operating costs of unit can be represented by
(4)
where , , and are cost coefficients. In cases where op-
erating costs are not represented by a quadratic function, we
could approximate them by such function. The approximation
will only be used for getting the initial power outputs of the units
and will not be used in the objective function. In addition, we
assume that all generators are online and connected in one point.
The total power demand is equal to the sum of loads plus
power losses in the network . For zero-cost units (i.e.,
hydro power plants), we take corresponding scheduled power
outputs. Then, by the subroutine LCONG from the software
package Fortran PowerStation 4.0 [38], which minimizes a gen-
eral objective function subject to linear equality/inequality con-
straints, we obtain generator power output , , (i.e.,
“economic dispatch solution”), as a solution of (1) subject to
(5)
(6)
where TPP and HPP are sets of the thermal and hydro power
plants, respectively. In addition, we calculate weightings
(7)
(8)
where .
All chromosomes of the population are divided into
three subsets. The first subset contains only one chromosome.
The generator power outputs obtained by the LCONG optimiza-
tion procedure are assigned to this chromosome. The second
subset contains chromosomes as well as the third.
For each chromosome of the second subset, see the following.
1) Randomly select unit using roulette selection method
and weightings obtained by (7).1
2) If is equal to lower or upper limit, then repeat the
selection; otherwise, set power output of the selected unit
to the lower limit.
3) If spinning reserve of the remaining units is lower than a
certain predefined value (e.g., 10%), then repeat the selec-
tion.
4) Calculate power outputs of the other units by the LCONG
optimization procedure.
For each chromosome of the third subset, see the following.
1) Randomly select unit using roulette method and weight-
ings obtained by (8).2
1Units having higher production costs are more likely to be selected.
2Units having lower production costs are more likely to be selected.
482
2) If is equal to lower or upper limit, then repeat the
selection; otherwise, set power output of the selected unit
to the upper limit.
3) Calculate power outputs of the other units by the LCONG
optimization procedure.
2) Selection of Initial Voltage Magnitudes: We split the al-
lowable generator-bus voltage magnitude interval into number
of levels equal to the number of chromosomes in the population.
Therefore, each voltage level corresponds to one of the chromo-
somes. Then, within each of the chromosomes, we assign cor-
responding voltage level to all generator-buses. This procedure
is referred to as “voltage-grating.”
3) Selection of Initial Taps and Shunts Settings: The initial
values of the rest of the control variables are selected at random
from its predefined domain.
4) Proposed Initialization Procedure: The initial values of
voltage angles and magnitudes at generator-buses can be ob-
tained in the following steps.
1) Select the initial generator real power outputs.
2) For each of the chromosomes, assign the corre-
sponding voltage level to generator-buses using the
“voltage-grating” procedure (introduced in this subsec-
tion).
3) For each chromosome, do the following.
3.1) Calculate voltage angles at generator-buses and
complex voltages at load-buses by the fast decou-
pled or Newton’s method. In this calculation, we
use generator real power outputs from step 1), gen-
erator-bus voltage magnitudes from step 2), and
scheduled real and reactive loads.
3.2) Check for violated generator reactive power out-
puts. If violation occurs, reduce/increase the corre-
sponding bus voltage magnitude and go to step 3.1).
Otherwise, accept the actual voltage magnitudes and
angles at generator-buses as initial values for the
chromosome.
At this point, it might seem that step 3.1) is a deviation from
the main idea of this paper, which is the use of generator-bus
voltage angles as control variables. Nevertheless, it should be
emphasized that this is only an intermediate step toward popu-
lation initialization.
C. Chromosome Fitness
Fitness is a quantity related to the chromosome. It serves to
enable comparison between chromosomes. At the stage when
we calculate the fitness, we have already solved the power flow
equations, meaning that the constraints (2) are satisfied. How-
ever, all constraints (3) have to be checked for violations. In this
paper, the penalty method is used, which degrades the fitness in
cases with violated constraint. The fitness for chromosome is
defined by
(9)
where is the objective function related to chromosome
[as in (1)], is the set of violated constraints associated to
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 2, MAY 2006
chromosome , and is the penalty term corresponding to con-
straint .
For example, if variable (having upper limit and lower
) is of type , for which the penalty coefficient is , then in
a case of constraint violation, the corresponding penalty term
included in (9) will be
if
(10)
if
For the set of violated constraints, four different penalty coef-
ficients are used, related to the following state variables: gener-
ator real and reactive powers, voltage magnitudes, and branch
MVA flows. As suggested in [2], it is quite effective to start
with low values of penalty coefficients and to increase them
during the optimization process. The penalty increase should be
controlled; otherwise, it may be counterproductive and perform
worse than the case with constant penalty coefficients. Conse-
quently, the following control scheme is applied. After a cer-
tain number of generations (usually ten), we check whether the
best chromosome has changed since the last check and whether
there are violated constraints related to it. If in both cases the an-
swers are positive, then the corresponding penalty coefficients
are multiplied by a certain factor (usually two). In addition, it is
advisable not to let the penalty coefficients increase too much.
Note that in this approach, within each generation of the GA
solution process, for each of the chromosomes, we evaluate
complex voltages at generator-buses by GA and then calculate
complex voltages at load-buses. With these voltages, we can di-
rectly calculate injected power at each of the generator-buses,
regardless of the number of generators at the bus. However, two
or more generators can exist at some buses, in which case, the
share of each generator to the total injected power should be
determined. This can even be done prior to the GA-OPF op-
timization by solving a small problem of a few parallel-con-
nected generators at one point. In such a way, we can construct
a lookup table with parallel generator power outputs offering
minimal production costs.
D. Selection
Improvement of the average fitness of the population is
achieved through selection of individuals as parents from the
completed population. The selection is performed in such a
way that chromosomes having higher fitness are more likely to
be selected as parents.
Bearing in mind that some of the individuals may have signif-
icantly higher fitness than the others, the next generation may be
constituted of large number of identical individuals. This poses
a limitation on the population diversity, meaning that the search
space will be reduced. One can omit such a situation by using
relative fitness [11]. Let and be the minimal and the
maximal fitness in the population, respectively. Then the rela-
tive fitness for chromosome is defined as
(11)
TODOROVSKI AND RAJIČIĆ: INITIALIZATION PROCEDURE IN SOLVING OPF BY GA 483

There are several selection techniques. The roulette selection

method is used here. In this method, we calculate the relative
weight of each chromosome’s fitness as

(12)

Therefore, the likelihood of selecting a chromosome as a

parent is a function of its fitness relative to the total.
To further improve the evolving process, the GA can carry
over the best individuals from the completed population to the
new population set (principle of elitism).

E. Crossover
After the selection, the GA picks a pair of selected chromo-
somes in order to create two new chromosomes. The GA ap-
plies a random generator to cut the strings at any position (the
crossover point) and exchanges the substrings between the two
chromosomes. After the crossover is performed, the new chro-
mosomes are added to the new population set.

F. Mutation
The mutation is specifically applied to increase population
diversity. Mutation involves randomly selecting genes within
the chromosomes and assigning them random values within the
corresponding predefined interval. In order not to destroy good
genetic code, nonuniform mutation has to be applied. In such
a manner, in later stages of GA optimization process, the in-
terval for random selection of genes’ values is narrowed [11]. In
the course of mutation, gene will take a new value depending
on generation number , maximum number of generations ,
nonuniform mutation parameter , and two random numbers
and as follows: Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed optimization procedure.

if number of generations, for which we assume that the search

(13)
if
where and are gene’s minimal and maximal values (from
the permissible domain).
The probability of mutation is normally kept very low, as high
mutation rates could degrade the evolving process into a random
search process.
G. GA Parameters
GA requires definition of a number of parameters, which can
affect the efficiency of the search process in several ways.
The population size should be large enough to create
sufficient diversity covering the possible solution space. Gen-
erally, one cannot know the optimal value of in advance.
Clearly, a more complex problem domain requires a larger
due to larger possible combination of variables.
Another user-defined criterion is the point at which the opti-
mization process terminates. In this paper, we use GA with fixed
process has covered sufficient search space.
Other parameters, such as crossover probability, mutation
rate, selection, and crossover mechanisms, seem to affect the
GA process less significantly when evaluated over a larger
number of generations.
The flowchart of the proposed optimization procedure is
shown in Fig. 1.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed approach was applied on the following test sys-
tems: IEEE 30 [25], [27], [39], IEEE 118 [26], [39], 1-area IEEE
RTS96 [15], [39], and 3-area IEEE RTS96 [15], [39]. In some
cases, the results obtained by the proposed o influence on the
final result. approach are compared with the results from the
literature. In all those cases, the crossover and mutation proba-
bility, as well as the population size and number of generations,
were taken from the corresponding papers. The nonuniform mu-
tation parameter in (13) is set to 5. The results were used to
investigate evolution of the objective function, final objective
function values, computation times, and method robustness.
484
Fig. 2. Objective function evolution—IEEE 30.
Fig. 3. Objective function evolution—1-area IEEE RTS96.
Fig. 4. Objective function evolution—IEEE 118.
Fig. 5. Objective function evolution—3-area IEEE RTS96.
A. Evolution of the Objective Function
Figs. 2–5 illustrate the evolution of the best objective func-
tion values through generations. In these figures, there are two
lines representing two different initialization procedures: solid
line for the initialization proposed in this paper (see Section III)
and dotted line for the standard initialization procedure (random
selection of real powers and voltage magnitudes). These figures
show that appropriate reduction of the number of generations
has almost n
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 2, MAY 2006
TABLE I
SOLUTION FOR THE IEEE 30-BUS TEST SYSTEM
TABLE II
FINAL RESULTS OF THE TESTS
In some of the figures, we can see intervals in which the objec-
tive function increases. They appear when there are overloaded
lines as a consequence of the GA activity to eliminate the vio-
lations.
B. Final Results
Table I presents one solution for the IEEE 30-bus test system,
containing the genes’ values (voltage magnitudes and angles)
along with the generators’ real and reactive power outputs.
From the OPF solution, the power system operator can get the
injected real power and voltage magnitude for every generator,
as well as transformer taps, and shunt admittances settings. In
other words, he can set the system in optimal state by adjusting
the real power output through the governor loop and voltage
magnitude through the exciter loop. Also, Table I contains the
production costs for all generators.
In Table II, we present the final values of the objective func-
tion obtained by the proposed approach (20 runs), along with
the results reported in the corresponding papers. The table con-
tains the best solutions, as well as the average values of all 20
runs. A good concordance in the results is evident.
C. Computation Times
In Table III, the time consumption (measured on AMD
Athlon 1,833 MHz) for the whole GA-OPF run for two dif-
ferent cases is presented. In both cases, we used the same
GA-OPF approach explained in this paper, but we calculated
voltages at load-buses by different methods. In case 1, we
applied the power flow method from [34] (see the Appendix),
while in case 2, we applied the fast decoupled power flow
method from [33]. In both cases, we used the real and reactive
power mismatches as a termination criterion for the voltage cal-
culation procedure. In addition, the same seed for the random
TODOROVSKI AND RAJIČIĆ: INITIALIZATION PROCEDURE IN SOLVING OPF BY GA 485

TABLE III V. CONCLUSION

TIME CONSUMPTIONS USING DIFFERENT POWER FLOW METHODS
TABLE IV
RESULTS WHEN CHROMOSOMES INCLUDE GENERATOR
REAL POWERS INSTEAD OF VOLTAGE ANGLES
In this paper, a novel approach in solving the OPF problem
by GA has been proposed. It is based on the application of
the new initialization procedure and recently published idea of
using voltage angles at generator-buses as control variables.
The application of the proposed approach to several IEEE test
systems shows that the proposed initialization procedure im-
proves the performance of the whole GA-OPF procedure. Nu-
merous tests illustrate that the proposed approach gives results
competitive to the results obtained by corresponding methods
from the literature. In addition, the computational time is dras-
tically reduced.

APPENDIX

A. Review of the Power Flow Method From [34]

In this approach, it is assumed that complex voltages at all
generator-buses are known. The complex bus admittance ma-
trix is formed taking into account initial values of the
TABLE V transformer turn ratios and shunt admittances.
RESULTS FOR THE IEEE 30-BUS TEST SYSTEM Using the elements of , for load-bus , we can write

(14)

(15)

(16)

number generator was applied, so we are certain that the initial where is the complex load at bus , is the dif-
populations are identical, as well as the evolution path. In such ference between the actual and initial values of complex shunt
a way, we produced exactly the same final results. admittance at bus , is the complex voltage at bus ,
In Table IV, we present the results (time consumption as an is the sum of currents modeling tap changes [as in (23)] at all
average of all 20 runs and the best generation costs) for the transformers connected to bus , is the element of in
cases where the generator real powers and voltage magnitudes row and column , and and are sets of indexes of
are selected as control variables (i.e., as genes). In case 1, the load-buses and generator-buses directly connected to bus , re-
initial generator real power outputs and voltage magnitudes are spectively. Asterisk as a superscript denotes complex conjugate.
selected randomly, while in case 2, the procedure proposed in Writing (14) for every load-bus of the system, a set of simul-
this paper was applied. In both cases, the fast decoupled power taneous equations is obtained. It can be expressed in matrix form
flow method was employed. The final results are pretty similar as
to the results of Table II and, in the case when the proposed
initialization was used, are slightly better. As it can be seen, the (17)
difference between the running times from Table III, case 1, and
Table IV is obvious. where elements of vectors and are calculated from
(15) and (16), respectively. At the beginning of the voltage cal-
D. Robustness culation procedure, can be obtained from by ex-
cluding rows and columns related to generator-buses.
In order to investigate the robustness of the proposed ap- Load-bus voltages can be calculated from (17) by an iterative
proach, it is applied to the IEEE 30-bus test system using the procedure, since the elements of depend on the load-bus
following three types of generator cost curves (as in [25]): voltages that are not known at the beginning. On the other hand,
quadratic, piecewise quadratic, and quadratic with a sine the elements of do not change from iteration to iteration,
component superimposed upon it. In the last type, the sine and we calculate them only once. In addition, application of the
component is used to represent the valve-point loading effect transformer model explained in Subsection B of this Appendix
[12]. allows keeping constant in spite of changes in transformer
The obtained results are presented in Table V, where a good tap settings. As a result, should be formed and factorized
match with the results from [25] is obvious. only once.
486 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 2, MAY 2006

For and in two successive iterations, we can define

(18)
Fig. 6. Transformer equivalent circuit.
and

(19)

Then, from (17)–(19), we obtain

(20)
Fig. 7. Representation of the transformer from Fig. 6.
Since is sparse, the use of sparse matrix factorization
is recommended when solving (17) and (20). In addition, it is voltages can be calculated by using methods effective for radial
beneficial to apply the method proposed by Tinney and Walker and weakly meshed networks.
for structurally symmetric matrices [35], as well as Markowitz’s
strategy and Duff’s search technique [36]. In this procedure, C. Handling Changes of Transformer Taps
the application of row-column permutation contributes to fill-ins
minimization, while the threshold pivoting strategy improves Let transformer have complex turns ratio and admittance
the numerical stability. , and connect buses and . Corresponding equivalent circuit
At the beginning of the GA-OPF procedure, the matrix contains an ideal transformer with complex turns ratio :1 in
is created and factorized. The iterative procedure for calculation series with admittance (see Fig. 6). The bus admittance ma-
of load-bus voltages consists of the following steps. trix of the transformer from Fig. 6 is (e.g., [37])
1) Set all load-bus voltages at per unit (flat start).
2) Calculate the elements of [using (15) and (23)] and
(21)
the elements of [using (16)].
3) Solve (17) and get new load-bus voltages.
4) Calculate new elements of [using (15) and (23)] and
According to (21), three out of four elements of are
the elements of [using (19)].
not constant, since ratio keeps changing as the GA searches
5) Solve (20) for and update .
for the optimal solution. This could pose serious drawbacks on
6) If magnitudes of all elements of are not less than
the voltage calculation procedure, because if one goes straight-
the specified voltage tolerance, go to step 4); otherwise,
forward, many factorizations of will be required.
the iterative process is finished.3
This problem can be bypassed following a different calcu-
lation path, in which the influence of the ratio changes can be
B. Network-Model
modeled by current injections. To do this, for every transformer
It should be noted that the selection of voltage angles at , we first calculate the transformer admittance matrix
generator-buses as control variables enables the construction using the initial value of its turns ratio and put it into .
of a network-model, which can be used in calculation of volt- Then, in cases when turns ratio of the transformer changes to
ages at load-buses. The network-model does not contain the , corresponding admittance matrix can be repre-
generator-buses. It can be obtained from the original network sented as a sum of and the matrix increment
making the following changes: each branch connecting a
generator-bus with a load-bus should be substituted by a shunt
branch and shunt current generator at the load-bus. The shunt
branch impedance is equal to the impedance of the substituted (22)
branch. The current of the current generator is equal to the
quotient of the voltage at the generator-bus and the impedance
of the substituted branch. Then, can be obtained as the In order to keep constant (and avoid additional factor-
bus admittance matrix of the network-model. izations), we do not put into , but we simulate it in
It should be noted that in some cases, network-models consist (20) by injected currents
of several parts. Voltage calculations in each of those parts can
be done separately. In addition, some of the parts can have radial
or weakly meshed topological structure. In those cases, load-bus

(23)
3In order to have the same termination criterion for both cases in Table III,
the procedure does not stop after step 6) but rather continues with step 7):
1 1
7) Calculate power mismatches ( P and Q ). If magnitude of any power
that should be subtracted from and , respectively (see
mismatches is greater than the specified power tolerance, then continue as in
step 4); otherwise, the iterative process is finished. Fig. 7).
TODOROVSKI AND RAJIČIĆ: INITIALIZATION PROCEDURE IN SOLVING OPF BY GA
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. N. Markovska and Ms. S.
Secrest for proofreading the manuscript. Also, the authors spe-
cially acknowledge the data provisions for IEEE test systems by
Messrs. M. A. Abido, P. N. Biskas and P. Venkatesh via private
e-mail communication.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Carpentier, Contribution a l’étude du dispatching économique, ser. 8:
Bulletin de la Société Française des Électriciens, Août 1962, vol. III, pp.
431–447.
[2] H. W. Dommel and W. F. Tinney, “Optimal power flow solution,” IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-87, no. 10, pp. 1866–1876, Oct. 1968.
[3] J. A. Momoh, M. E. El-Hawary, and R. Adapa, “A review of selected
optimal power flow literature to 1993, Part 1: Nonlinear and quadratic
programming approaches,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp.
96–104, Feb. 1999.
[4] , “A review of selected optimal power flow literature to 1993, Part 2:
Newton, linear programming and interior point methods,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 105–111, Feb. 1999.
[5] Y.-C. Wu, A. S. Debs, and R. E. Marsten, “A direct nonlinear predictor-
corrector primal-dual interior point algorithm for optimal power flows,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 876–883, May 1994.
[6] G. Torres and V. Quintana, “On a nonlinear multiple-centrality-correc-
tions interior-point method for optimal power flows,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 222–228, May 2001.
[7] Y.-C. Wu, “Fuzzy second correction on complementary condition for op-
timal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 360–366,
Aug. 2001.
[8] V. Miranda and J. T. Saraiva, “Fuzzy modeling of power system optimal
load flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 843–849, May
1992.
[9] K. H. Abdul-Rahman and S. M. Shahidehpour, “Static security in power
system operation with fuzzy real load conditions,” IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 77–87, Feb. 1995.
[10] K. P. Wong and C. C. Fung, “Simulated annealing based economic dis-
patch algorithm,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol.
140, no. 6, pp. 509–515, Nov. 1993.
[11] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms+Data Structures=Evolution Pro-
grams, 3rd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 111–112.
[12] D. C. Walters and G. B. Sheblé, “Genetic algorithm solution of economic
dispatch with valve point loading,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no.
3, pp. 1325–1332, Aug. 1993.
[13] G. B. Sheblé and K. Brittig, “Refined genetic algorithm—economic dis-
patch example,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 117–124,
Feb. 1995.
[14] P.-H. Chen and H.-C. Chang, “Large-scale economic dispatch by genetic
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1919–1926, Nov.
1995.
[15] A. G. Bakirtzis, P. N. Biskas, C. E. Zoumas, and V. Petridis, “Optimal
power flow by enhanced genetic algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 229–236, May 2002.
[16] T. Yalcinoz, H. Altun, and M. Uzam, “Economic dispatch solution using
a genetic algorithm based on arithmetic crossover,” in Proc. IEEE Porto
Power Tech. Conf., Porto, Portugal, Sep. 2001.
[17] J. H. Park, Y. S. Kim, I. K. Eom, and K. Y. Lee, “Economic load dispatch
for piecewise quadratic cost function using Hopfield neural network,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1030–1038, Aug. 1993.
[18] J. Kumar and G. B. Sheblé, “Clamped state solution of artificial neural
network for real-time economic dispatch,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 925–931, May 1995.
[19] C.-T. Su and G.-J. Chiou, “A fast-computation Hopfield method to eco-
nomic dispatch of power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no.
4, pp. 1759–1764, Nov. 1997.
[20] T. Yalcinoz and M. J. Short, “Neural networks approach for solving eco-
nomic dispatch problem with transmission capacity constraints,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 307–313, May 1998.
[21] C.-H. Lin and S.-Y. Lin, “A new dual-type method used in solving op-
timal power flow problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
1667–1675, Nov. 1997.
487
[22] C.-H. Lin, S.-Y. Lin, and S.-S. Lin, “Improvements on the duality based
method used in solving optimal power flow problem,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 315–323, May 2002.
[23] L. Chen, H. Suzuki, and K. Katou, “Mean field theory for optimal power
flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1481–1486, Nov.
1997.
[24] H.-T. Yang, P.-C. Yang, and C.-L. Huang, “Evolutionary programming
based economic dispatch for units with nonsmooth fuel cost function,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 112–118, Feb. 1996.
[25] J. Yuryevich and K. P. Wong, “Evolutionary programming based op-
timal power flow algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 1245–1250, Nov. 1999.
[26] P. Venkatesh, R. Gnanadass, and N. P. Padhy, “Comparison and appli-
cation of evolutionary techniques to combined economic emission dis-
patch with line flow constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no.
2, pp. 688–697, May 2003.
[27] M. A. Abido, “Environmental/economic power dispatch using multiob-
jective evolutionary algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 4,
pp. 1529–1537, Nov. 2003.
[28] T. Kulworawanichpong and S. Sujitjorn, “Optimal power flow using tabu
search,” IEEE Power Eng. Rev., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 37–40, Jun. 2002.
[29] Z. L. Gaing, “Particle swarm optimization to solving the economic dis-
patch considering the generator constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1187–1195, Aug. 2003.
[30] S.-Y. Lin, Y.-C. Ho, and C.-H. Lin, “An ordinal optimization theory-
based algorithm for solving the optimal power flow problem with dis-
crete control variables,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
276–286, Feb. 2004.
[31] W. F. Tinney, J. M. Bright, K. D. Demeree, and B. A. Hughes, “Some
deficiencies in optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no.
2, pp. 676–683, May 1988.
[32] J. A. Momoh, R. J. Koessler, M. S. Bond, B. Stott, D. Sun, A. Papalex-
opoulos, and P. Ristanović, “Challenges to optimal power flow,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 444–455, Feb. 1997.
[33] B. Stott and O. Alsaç, “Fast decoupled load flow,” IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst., vol. PAS-93, no. 3, pp. 859–869, May/Jun. 1974.
[34] M. Todorovski and D. Rajičić, “A power flow method suitable for
solving OPF problems using genetic algorithms,” in Proc. IEEE Region
8 EUROCON, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 215–219.
[35] W. F. Tinney and J. W. Walker, “Direct solution of sparse network equa-
tions by optimally ordered triangular factorization,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 55,
no. 11, pp. 1801–1809, Nov. 1967.
[36] I. S. Duff, A. M. Erisman, and J. K. Reid, Direct Methods for Sparse
Matrices. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
[37] G. W. Stagg and A. H. El-Abiad, Computer Methods in Power Systems
Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
[38] “Fortran PowerStation 4.0,” Microsoft Developer Studio, Microsoft Cor-
poration, 1994–1995.
[39] University of Washington, Department of Electrical Engineering. Power
Systems Test Case Archive. [Online]Available: http://www.ee.wash-
ington.edu/research/pstca.
[40] [Online] Available: http://cuaerospace.com/carroll/whats_new_ga.html.
Mirko Todorovski received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and D.Sc. degrees from Univer-
sity “Sv. Kiril i Metodij,” Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, in 1995, 1998, and
2004, respectively.
From 1997–2005, he was with the Research Center for Energy, Informatics,
and Materials of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Skopje, Re-
public of Macedonia. In 2006, he joined the Faculty of Electrical Engineering
in Skopje, and presently, he is a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Power
Systems. His research interests are related to computer applications in power
system analysis and planning.
Dragoslav Rajičić (SM’97) received the B.Sc. degree from University “Sv.
Kiril i Metodij,” Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and the M.Sc. and D.Sc. de-
grees from the University of Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro, in 1963, 1970,
and 1978, respectively.
He is a retired Professor from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Univer-
sity “Sv. Kiril i Metodij.”