See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233853076

A Solution to Security Constrained Non-Convex Economic Dispatch Problem

by Modified Subgradient Algorithm Based on Feasible Values

Article in International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · December 2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.05.029

CITATIONS READS

17 412

3 authors:

Salih Fadıl Ahmet Yazici

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Eskisehir Osmangazi University
73 PUBLICATIONS 236 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 782 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Burak Urazel
Eskisehir Osmangazi University
35 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Salih Fadıl on 13 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

A solution to security constrained non-convex economic dispatch problem by

modified subgradient algorithm based on feasible values
Salih Fadıl a,⇑, Ahmet Yazici b, Burak Urazel a
a
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey
b
Department of Computer Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A security constrained power dispatch problem with non-convex total cost rate function for a lossy elec-
Received 10 June 2010 tric power system is formulated. Then, an iterative solution method proposed by us and based on mod-
Received in revised form 30 November 2011 ified subgradient algorithm operating on feasible values (F-MSG) is used to solve it.
Accepted 25 May 2012
Since all equality and inequality constraints in our nonlinear optimization model are functions of bus
Available online 15 July 2012
voltage magnitudes and phase angles, off-nominal tap settings and susceptance values of svar systems,
they are taken as independent variables. Load flow equations are added to the model as equality con-
Keywords:
straints. The unit generation constraints, transmission line capacity constraints, bus voltage magnitude
Economic power dispatch
Non-convex fuel cost rate curves
constraints, off-nominal tap setting constraints and svar system susceptance value constraints are added
Valve point effect into the optimization problem as inequality constraints. Since F-MSG algorithm requires that all inequal-
Security constraints ity constraints should be expressed in equality constraint form, all inequality constraints are converted
The modified subgradient algorithm based into equality constraints by the method, which does not add any extra independent variable into the
on feasible values model and reducing the solution time because of it, before application of it to the optimization model.
F-MSG algorithm The proposed technique is tested on IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 57 bus test systems. The minimum total cost
rates and the solution times obtained from F-MSG algorithm and from the other techniques are com-
pared, and the outperformance of the F-MSG algorithm with respect to the other methods in each test
system is demonstrated.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction evolution algorithms [9] previously. The dispatch problem of IEEE

Economic dispatch (ED) problem in power systems is a con-
strained non-linear optimization problem. The aim of ED is mini-
mizing the total active power generation cost rate under some
constraints.
In the literature, many methods have been developed and ap-
plied to solve economic dispatch problem. Some of these methods
use the genetic algorithm [1,2], the particle swarm optimization
technique [3,4], the tabu search technique [5,6], the evolutionary,
differential evolutionary and the modified differential evolutionary
algorithms [7–10], the pseudo spot price algorithm [11], the inte-
rior point method [12], the quantum-inspired evolutionary algo-
rithm [13], and finally the hybrid methods [14].
The non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 57-
bus test systems are considered in this paper. The dispatch problem
of IEEE 30 bus test system was solved by means of tabu search [5],
evolutionary programming [7], and improved evolutionary pro-
gramming [8], differential evolution and modified differential
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 222 239 2840x3264; fax: +90 222 221 39 18.
E-mail addresses: sfadil@ogu.edu.tr (S. Fadıl), ayazici@ogu.edu.tr (A. Yazici),
burazel@ogu.edu.tr (B. Urazel).
57 bus system was also solved by means of evolutionary program-
ming and mixed-integer genetic algorithm with arithmetic opera-
tors [2] previously. In test systems, the minimum total cost rate
and solution time values produced by the F-MSG using different ini-
tial points and the other methods are compared. The outperfor-
mance of the F-MSG method against to the other methods in
terms of both the minimum total cost rate and solution time is
demonstrated.
The F-MSG method is a deterministic solution method, which
uses deterministic equations at one point to produce the next solu-
tion point being closer to the optimum solution in the solution
space; whereas the evolutionary methods work on a solution pop-
ulation rather than on a single solution and use probabilistic tools
to produce new solutions [1–10]. In general, solution times for the
evolutionary methods are considerably higher than those of deter-
ministic methods for the lossy security constrained economic dis-
patch problems with convex cost curve since they work on a
solution population. In the problems with non-convex cost curve,
the evolutionary methods can find the optimum solution point.
Deterministic methods especially based on classical gradient
method can have difficulty in finding the optimum solution in
the non-convex cost curve case, and this difficulty can be

0142-0615/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.05.029
850 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858
Nomenclature
R a fictitious monetary unit
R set of real numbers
N number of buses in the network
NG set that contains all buses to which a generator is con-
nected
NQ set that contains all buses to which a reactive power
source is connected
NB i set that contains all buses directly connected to bus i
Ntap set that contains all tap changing transformers in the
network
Nsvar set that contains all svar systems in the network
L set that contains all lines in the network
Ui voltage magnitude of bus i
di phase angle of bus i
rij + jxij series impedance of the line between buses i and j
gij + jbij series admittance of the line between buses i and j
gshi + jbshi the sum of the half line charging admittance and exter-
nal shunt admittance (svar system), bsh i = bcapi + bsvari, if
any at bus i.
bsvari susceptance of the svar system connected to bus i
ai off-nominal tap setting value of tap setting facility at
bus i
pij, qij active and reactive power flows from bus i to bus j at
bus i border, respectively
pij, qij active and reactive power flows from bus i to bus j at
bus j border, respectively
pl active power flow on line l
Pi, Qi net injected active and reactive powers to bus i, respec-
tively
PG i, QG i active and reactive power generations of the ith unit,
respectively
overcome by initiating the solution method from different points
in the solution space and choosing the solution with the minimum
cost. In general there is no specific rule in selection of the starting
points which will lead to the optimum solution. Also, as the num-
ber of the selected starting points (number of solution) increases,
the total solution time increases proportionally. Hence, using an
evolutionary solution method can become advantageous. Although
the F-SMG method is a deterministic method, it can find the optimal
solution in the case of non-convex cost function. This is due to its
search method and the formation of its augmented sharp LaGrange
function [15].
In PSPA algorithm [11], the power system transmission loss is
inserted into the solution procedure via a load flow calculation. Ini-
tially, a power flow calculation is carried out with the selected ac-
tive power generations; after that, new active generations are
calculated using the active power flows on the transmission lines
and pseudo spot price of electricity of each bus. Then, a load flow
calculation is carried out with the newly determined active gener-
ations. This iterative procedure continues until the decrease in the
cost function is less than a predefined tolerance value. To correct
the bus voltages that exceed their limits, which are found at the
end of active power optimization procedure, an iterative reactive
power optimization calculation procedure similar to active power
optimization procedure is carried out. At the end, the power flows
of the lines that exceed their limits are corrected via an optimiza-
tion model which uses generation shift factors of the considered
power system. In PSPA algorithm, at least three optimization mod-
els are used in a row to handle all security constraints. The F-MSG
method handles all security constraints in a single optimization
model, and it does not use load flow calculation in the solution
PLoad,i, QLoad,i active and reactive loads of the ith bus, respectively
PLoss,l active power loss on the line l
PLOSS total active power loss in the network
Fi active power generation cost rate function of the ith
generation unit
FT total active power generation cost rate of the system
Pmin max
Gi ; P Gi lower and upper active generation limits of the ith gen-
eration unit, respectively
Q min max
Gi ; Q Gi lower and upper reactive generation limits of the ith
generation unit, respectively
pmax
l maximum active transmission capacity of transmission
line l
nEQ number of equality constraints
nsvar number of static var systems in the network
ntap numbers of off nominal tap ratio transformers in the
network
NVAR number of independent variables
xk variable vector obtained at the kth iteration of the inner
loop
xnk variable vector obtained at the kth iteration of the inner
loop of the nth outer loop
uk, ck dual variables calculated at the kth iteration
unk ; cnk dual variables calculated at the kth iteration of the inner
loop of the nth outer loop
sk positive step size parameter calculated at the kth itera-
tion
F nT total cost rate value which will be checked in the nth
outer loop
Dn+1 decrement or increment on Fn value, at the end of nth
outer loop, according to whether Fn is feasible or not
e1, e2 tolerance values for kh(x)k and Dn, respectively
procedure. Hence, the solution time of the F-MSG is considerably
lower than that of the PSPA.
In the literature, classical gradient method is applied to solution
of various power dispatch problems. In those solutions, active gen-
erations of the units are taken as independent variables. The power
system loss is incorporated into the solution process via reference
bus penalty factors that are obtained from Jacobian matrix of load
flow solution. The transmission line capacity constraints can be
handled using another linear optimization model where the gener-
ation shift factors are used. The linear model where active power
generation changes are determined and the ac power flow calcula-
tion are used in an iterative manner to determine the optimal solu-
tion where transmission line capacity constraints are met. This
process can be accomplished after finding the minimum cost solu-
tion via the gradient method. To handle the bus voltage magnitude
constraints in the gradient method, the calculation procedure sim-
ilar to the active power dispatch can be used. In the calculation, the
reactive power generations of the generation units are selected as
independent variables, and this procedure can be applied after the
determination of the optimal active power generations. In the case
of non-convex cost function, the minimum cost solution can be
tried to be found using different starting point in the solution space
since the calculated solution point depends on the selected starting
point in the classical gradient method.
In the proposed solution algorithm based on F-MSG method
[15], the bus voltage magnitudes and phase angles, the off nominal
tap settings and the susceptance values of svar systems are taken
as independent variables. Since all the constraints can be written
in terms of those independent variables, the transmission line
capacity constraints, bus voltage magnitude constraints and svar
 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858 851

systems’ susceptance value constraints are handled together in the The meanings of the symbols used in this paper are given in the list
same model easily. The load flow equations are imported into the of symbols section.
model as equality constraints; therefore, the system loss is inserted
into the solution process automatically. In the F-MSG algorithm, an 2.1. Determination of line flows and power generations
upper bound for the cost function value is specified in advance, and
the algorithm tries to find a solution where the cost function is less In order to express the total cost rate function in terms of inde-
than or equal to the upper bound while all constraints are met. If it pendent variables of our optimization model, line flows should be
finds it (feasible solution), the upper bound is decreased by a certain written in terms of bus voltage magnitudes and bus voltage phase
amount, otherwise (infeasible solution) the upper bound is increased angles, off-nominal tap settings, susceptance values of svar sys-
by a certain amount. The amount of decrease or increase on the tems (see Eqs. (1) and (2)). The following equations give the active
upper bound for the next iteration depends on whether any feasi- and reactive power flows over the line being connected between
ble or infeasible solution was obtained in the previous iterations. If buses i and j [16].
the current solution is feasible and any infeasible solution has not  
g ij Ui Uj
been chosen yet, then the decrease amount on the upper bound for pij ¼ U 2i þ g shi  ½g ij cosðdi  dj Þ þ bij sinðdi  dj Þ ð9Þ
a2i ai
the next iteration remains the same. If the current solution is fea-
sible and an infeasible solution has been chosen before, then the Ui Uj
pji ¼ U 2j ðg ij þ g shj Þ  ½g ij cosðdj  di Þ þ bij sinðdj  di Þ ð10Þ
decrease amount on the upper bound for the next iteration is taken a
  i
as the half of its previous value. If the current solution is infeasible bij Ui Uj
qij ¼ U 2i þ bshi  ½g ij sinðdi  dj Þ  bij cosðdi  dj Þ ð11Þ
and any feasible solution has not been chosen yet, then the in- a2i ai
crease amount on the upper bound for the next iteration remains Ui Uj
the same. If the current solution is infeasible and a feasible solution qji ¼ U 2j ðbij þ bshi Þ  ½g ij sinðdj  di Þ  bij sinðdj  di Þ ð12Þ
ai
has been chosen before, then the increase amount on the upper
bound for the next iteration is taken as the half of its previous va- In the equations above, Ui is the voltage magnitude of bus i, di is the
lue. This process continues until absolute value of the change in the phase angle of bus i, rij + jxij is the series impedance of the line between
upper bound is less than a predefined tolerance value. Note that a buses i and j, gij + jbij is the series admittance of the line between buses
specific initial increase/decrease amount for the cost function is se- i and j, where gij + jbij = 1/(rij + jxij), gshi + jbshi = gshi + j(bcapi + bsvari) is
lected at the beginning of the algorithm. The way of search and the the sum of the half line charging admittance and external shunt sus-
formation of the sharp augmented LaGrange function, which are ceptance (svar system) if any, and ai is the off-nominal tap setting
employed in the F-MSG algorithm, make finding of the absolute with tap setting facility at bus i. pij and qij are the active and reactive
minimum cost possible once the cost function is non-convex. To power flows going from bus i to j at bus i border, respectively. pji and
find the initial bus voltage magnitude and phase angles, an initial qji are the active and reactive power flows going from bus i to j at bus
total cost rate value (being higher than the optimal one), a load j border, respectively.
flow calculation is performed with the selected initial unit genera- With the help of Eqs. (9)–(12), from Eq. (2), the active and reac-
tions and other quantities at the beginning of the algorithm. No more tive power generations of the ith unit (connected to bus i) can be
load flow calculation is performed in the subsequent stages of the calculated by the following expressions:
proposed solution process. Since the F-MSG algorithm works with
X
PGi ¼ PLoad i þ pij ð13Þ
only the equality constraints, we convert inequality constraints j2NBi
into equality constraints using a method which does not add any X
Q Gi ¼ Q Load i þ qij ð14Þ
extra independent variable into the optimization model and re-
j2N Bi
duces the solution time because of it.
To our knowledge, the proposed algorithm has not been applied The total loss of the network can be calculated as follows:
to the problem considered in this paper so far.
ploss ij ¼ pij þ pji ð15Þ
XX
PLOSS ¼ pij ð16Þ
2. Problem formulation i2N j2N;j–i

In this section, a nonlinear programming model is proposed for The non-convex cost rate function of the ith unit is taken as
the economic power dispatch problem as follows:    
 
X F i ðPGi Þ ¼ bi þ ci PGi þ di P2Gi þ ei sin g i Pmin
Gi  P Gi ; i 2 NG ð17Þ
Min F T ¼ F i ðPGi Þ ð1Þ
i2N G where bi, ci, di, ei and gi are constant coefficients. The sine term in
(17) is added to the cost rate curve to reflect the valve point loading
Subject to
X affect. The non-convex total cost rate is also determined as:
PGi  PLoad;i  pij ¼ 0 X
j2NBi
FT ¼ F i ðPGi Þ ðR=hÞ ð18Þ
X ð2Þ i2NG
Q Gi  Q Load;i  qij ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N
j2NBi
2.2. Converting inequality constraints into equality constraints
Pmin
Gi 6 PGi 6 Pmax
Gi ; i 2 NG ð3Þ
Since the F-MSG algorithm requires all constraints be expressed
Q min max
Gi 6 Q Gi 6 Q Gi ; i 2 NQ ð4Þ in equality constraint form, the inequality constraints in the opti-
 pmax
l 6 pl 6 pmax
l ; l2L ð5Þ mization model should be converted into corresponding equality
U min 6 U i 6 U max ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; N; i – ref ð6Þ constraints. The following method is used for this purpose since
i i
min max it does not add any extra independent variable (like in the slack
ai 6 ai 6 ai ; i 2 Ntap ð7Þ
variable approach) into the optimization model and reduces the
min max
bsv ari 6 bsv ari 6 bsv ari ; i 2 Nsv ar ð8Þ solution time because of it [17]. The double sided inequality
þ
x
i 6 xi 6 xi can be written as the following two inequalities:
852 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858

þ     
hi ðxi Þ ¼ xi  xi þ
6 0; hi ðxi Þ ¼ xi  xi 6 0 ð19Þ Hðu; cÞ ¼ Min Lðx; u; cÞ ð23Þ
x2K

Then we can rewrite the above inequalities as continuous equality Then, the dual problem is given by
forms as follows:
eqþ   eq   Max Hðu; cÞ ð24Þ
hi ðxi Þ ¼ max 0; xi  xþi ; hi ðxi Þ ¼ max 0; xi  xi : ðu;cÞ2R
NEQ
Rþ

 
If x
i 6 xi 6 xþ
i , it
is obvious that
 xi 
 xi 6 0;
þ
 xi 6 0 and
max 0; xi  xþ
¼ 0; max 0; x
i i  xi ¼ 0. So, the inequality
constraints in (19) can be represented by the corresponding equal-
ity constraints in (20). In this paper, the inequality constraints given
in Eqs. (3)–(8) are converted into the corresponding equality con-
straints in this manner.
3. The modified subgradient algorithm based on feasible values
The nonlinear optimization problem described by Eqs. (1)–(20)
can be represented in the standard form given below:
Min F T ðxÞ
hðxÞ ¼ 0
S:t:
x2K
where x ¼ ½U 1 ; U 2 ; . . . ; U N ; d1 ; d2 ; . . . ; dN ; a1 ; a2 . . . ; antap ; bsvar1 ; bsvar2 ;
. . . ; bsvarnsvar  is the independent variable vector consisting of the
voltage magnitudes and phase angles of the buses (except the
reference bus), tap settings of the off-nominal tap ratio transform-
ers and susceptance values of the svar systems in the network.
FT(x) is the objective function that is given in Eq. (18), and
hðxÞ ¼ ½h1 ðxÞ; h2 ðxÞ; . . . ; hnEQ ðxÞ in (21) is the equality constraint vec-
tor. It includes all the original equality constraints which are given
in (2) and the equality constraints, which are obtained from con-
verting all the inequality constraints given in (3)–(8) into the corre-
sponding equality constraints via the method given in Section 2.2. K
is a sufficiently large compact set containing the potential values of
x. Region K is bounded by the upper and the lower limits of the volt-
age magnitudes of the buses and the upper and the lower limits of
the tap settings of the off nominal tap ratio transformers, and the
upper and the lower limits of the susceptance values of svar sys-
tems which are given in Eqs. (6)–(8). Note that the voltage magni-
tude and phase angle of the reference bus, (Uref, dref), are not
included into x since they are not independent variables and remain
constant during the solution process. In solving the constrained
optimization problem given by Eq. (21), the first step is to convert
it into unconstrained one by constructing the dual problem. This
can be done using various LaGrange functions [18]. LaGrange func-
tion must guarantee that the optimal solution of the dual problem
be equal to that of the primal constrained problem. Otherwise,
there will be a difference between the optimal values of these prob-
lems, in other words, a duality gap will occur. Classical LaGrange
function guarantees the zero duality gaps for the convex problems.
However, if the objective function or some of the constraints are not
convex, then the classical LaGrange function cannot guarantee this.
Therefore, for the non-convex problems, suitably selected augment-
ed LaGrange functions should be used. Considering the non-convex
nature of our problem, we form the dual problem using the follow-
ing sharp augmented LaGrange function:
Lðx; u; cÞ ¼ F T ðxÞ þ ckhðxÞk  hu; hðxÞi
¼ F T ðxÞ þ cð½h1 ðxÞ2 þ ½h2 ðxÞ2 þ    þ ½hnEQ ðxÞ2 Þ1=2
 ðu1 h1 ðxÞ þ u2 h2 ðxÞ þ    þ unEQ hnEQ ðxÞÞ
where u1 ; u2 ; . . . ; unEQ 2 R and c P 0 are LaGrange multipliers (dual
variables). The dual function associated with the constrained prob-
lem is defined as
ð20Þ For the given dual problem, the conditions of guaranteeing zero
  duality gaps are proven in [19]. The F-MSG algorithm which was re-
x
i
cently developed by Kasimbeyli et al. [15] is used to solve the dual
problem given in this paper. It is a generalized version of modified
subgradient algorithm [19]. The algorithm having two nested loops
is described in the following section.
3.1. The F-MSG algorithm
Initialization step:Select arbitrary initial active, reactive power
generations, tap ratios and susceptance values of the svar systems.
Then, perform an AC power flow calculation with selected active,
reactive power generations and tap ratios and susceptance values
of svar systems to obtain the initial values for the voltage magni-
ð21Þ
tudes and phase angles of the buses. Calculate the initial total cost
rate FT.
Step 1 Choose positive numbers e1, e2, D1 and M (upper bound for
k). Set n = 1, p = 0, q = 0, and Hn = FT.
 n n
Step 2 Choose u1 ; c1 2 RnEQ  Rþ and ‘(1) > 0 and set
k ¼ 1; uk ¼ un1 ; ck ¼ cn1 ;
Step 3 Given (uk, ck), solve the following constraint satisfaction
problem (CSP)
Find a solution xk 2 K such that
ð25Þ
F T ðxk Þ þ ck khðxk Þk  huk ; hðxk Þi 6 Hn
If a solution to (25) does not exist or ‘(k) > M, then go to step 6;
otherwise, if a solution xk exists then check whether h(xk) = 0. If
h(xk) = 0 (or if kh(xk)k 6 e1) then go to step 5, otherwise go to step 4.
Step 4 . Update dual variables as;
ukþ1 ¼ uk  ask hðxk Þ ð26Þ
ckþ1 ¼ ck þ ð1 þ aÞsk khðxk Þk ð27Þ
where sk is a positive step size parameter defined as
kaðHn  Lðxk ; uk ; ck ÞÞ
0 < sk ¼ ð28Þ
½a2 þ ð1 þ aÞ2 khðxk Þk2
where a and k are constant parameters with a > 0 and
0 < k < 2. Step size sk corresponding to the dual variables
(uk, ck) should also satisfy the following property:
ðsk khðxk Þk þ ck  kuk kÞ > ‘ðkÞ ð29Þ
Set k = k + 1, update ‘(k) in such a way that ‘(k) ? +1 as
k ? +1, and go to step 3.
Step 5 If p = 0, it means that any infeasible total cost rate value
has not been chosen yet, then set Dn+1 = Dn, otherwise
set Dnþ1 ¼ 12 Dn . If Dn+1 < e2, then stop, xk is an approximate
optimal primal solution, and (uk, ck) is an approximate dual
solution; otherwise set Hn+1 = min{FT(xk), Hn  Dn+1},
q = q + 1, n = n + 1, and go to step 2.
Step 6 If q = 0, it means that any feasible cost rate value has not
been chosen yet, then set Dn+1 = Dn, otherwise set
ð22Þ Dnþ1 ¼ 12 Dn . If Dn+1 < e2 then stop, and in this case, the last
calculated feasible xk is an approximate optimal primal
solution, and (uk, ck) is an approximate dual solution,
otherwise, set Hn+1 = Hn + Dn+1, p = p + 1, n = n + 1 and go
to step-2.
 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858 853

In this algorithm, steps 3 and 4 can be considered as the inner Table 2

Selected four different initial actual generation set and their initial total cost rate
loop, and steps 2, 5 and 6 can be considered as the outer loop. Indi-
values for non-convex IEEE 30-bus test system.
ces n and k represent the number of performed outer and inner
loop iterations, respectively. We call any outer loop, in which a fea- Set-1 Set-2 Set-3 Set-4
sible cost rate value is generated by the algorithm, as a feasible PG1 (MW) 77.87 103.40 130.52 174.71
state, nf. The selected total cost rate value Hn is updated in the out- QG1 (MVAr) 10.45 18.55 64.03 167.74
PG2 (MW) 80.00 60.00 40.00 50.00
er loop. Step 3 of the inner loop is concerned with finding a solu-
QG2 (MVAr) 15.00 15.00 5.00 5.00
tion to the CSP problem for the updated total cost rate value Hn. PG5 (MW) 50.00 45.00 40.00 20.00
Different methods can be used to find a solution x to the CSP prob- QG5 (MVAr) 15.00 10.00 5.00 5.00
lem or to show the non-existence of such a solution. PG8 (MW) 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
QG8 (MVAr) 15.00 10.00 10.00 5.00
Minimize f ¼ 0 PG11 (MW) 30.00 30.00 25.00 15.00
ð30Þ QG11 (MVAr) 15.00 35.00 10.00 5.00
Lðx; u; cÞ  Hn 6 0
Subject to PG13 (MW) 40.00 35.00 35.00 15.00
x2K QG13 (MVAr) 15.00 35.00 5.00 5.00
PLOSS (MW) 4.469 5.003 7.123 16.311
where f is a ‘fictitious’ objective function which is identically zero, FT (R/h) 1122.1558 1060.8892 1019.6718 964.8567
or can be taken as any constant value [15].
In the case of where Hn is a feasible value, a solution to the sub-
problem given in (30) exists and it will be found at Step 3. The complex voltage is taken as 1.05\0 pu. The lower limit of voltage
solution found at this step of kth iteration may be feasible or infea- magnitudes for all busses, except the reference bus, is taken as
sible. The way of updating the dual variables (uk, ck) in step 4 will 0.95 pu. The upper limit of voltage magnitudes for all the load bus-
force the solution in step 3 to converge to the feasible solution ses is chosen as 1.05 pu, while the upper limit for all the generator
(see theorems in [15]). busses is taken as 1.10 pu. The lower and upper limits for all off
Note that, the user chooses a large number M as an upper limit nominal transformer taps are taken as 0.90 and 1.10, respectively.
for the termination of inner iterations at initialization step. If the The parameters that are explained in Section 3.1 are chosen as
value of ‘(k) exceeds this limit, then this means that no feasible a = 1500, k = 1, e1 = 1  105, e2 = 0.05, M = 250, D1 = 50 R/h,
solution to the CSP problem exists. If the cost rate Hn is infeasible, c11 ¼ 2000; u11 ¼ ½0; 0; . . . 0; 0ð1113Þ , and ‘(k) = k. The same dispatch
then step 6 of outer loop is visited and the value of p is incre- problem is solved four times via the F-MSG method by using four
mented. When a feasible total cost rate value is obtained in the different initial generation sets. The same parameters are used in
algorithm, the value of q is incremented in step 5 of the outer loop. all solutions. The generator cost rate data is shown in Table 1
Therefore, the values of q and p show the total number of feasible where sine components are added to the cost rate curves of the
and infeasible total cost rate values, respectively, generated by the generating units at bus 1 and 2 to reflect the valve-point loading
algorithm. Please refer to reference [15] for convergence theorems effects (non-convex total cost rate curve), as it is given in Eq.
and properties of different parameters used in the F-MSG (17). The selected actual initial active and reactive generation
algorithm. schedules for four different initial points are given in Table 2. To
obtain initial cost rate and initial complex bus voltage values for
4. Numeric example each initial generation set, a load flow solution is carried out by
using each of them (please see Initialization Step in Section 3.1).
The proposed dispatch technique was tested on non-convex dis- The calculated initial total cost rate values for each initial genera-
patch problems of IEEE 30-bus and IEEE 57-bus test systems. The tion set are also shown in Table 2. The initial tap ratio values of the
minimum total cost rate and solution time values obtained from off nominal tap changing transformers on the lines 11, 12, 15 and
the proposed dispatch method and those obtained from the other 36 are taken as 0.978, 0.969, 0.932 and 0.968 respectively. The
solution methods, reported in the literature recently, are com- same initial tap values are used for each initial generation set.
pared, and the outperformance of the proposed solution method The non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 30 bus test system
in terms of both the total cost rate and the solution time against was solved via EP (Evolutionary Programming) [7], TS (Tabu
to the other methods is demonstrated. The simulation program Search) [5], IEP (Improved Evolutionary Programming) [8], DEA
was coded in Matlab 6.1. The CSP problem encountered in step-3 and MDEA (Differential Evolution Algorithm and Modified Differ-
of the F-MSG algorithm is solved by GAMS 21.5 with Conopt type ential Evolution Algorithm) [9] previously. The optimal total cost
solver. We employed a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo 2.20 GHz CPU and rate and solution time (ST) values produced by the F-MSG and
4 GB RAM in solution of the dispatch problems. the other methods are given in Table 3. We see from the table that
EP and TS give less expensive total cost rate values than those of
4.1. Solving economic non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 30-bus given by the other methods. However the best solution given in
test system with F-MSG [5] violates the limits of QG1 and the line 1 (from bus 1 to bus 2)
loading (infeasible solution). The best solution given in [6] also vio-
Please refer to Ref. [5] for the system’s single line diagram, line lates the limit of line 1 loading (infeasible solution) [9]. We see from
and bus data. Bus 1 is chosen as the reference bus, and its pu Table 3 that the F-MSG method outperforms IEP, DEA and MDEA in

Table 1
Generator data for IEEE 30-bus test system.

Bus number (i) P max

Gi (MW) P min
Gi (MW)
Q max
Gi (MVAr) Q min
Gi (MVAr)
bi ci di ei gi

1 200 50 250 20 150.0 2.00 0.0016 50.00 0.0630

2 80 20 100 20 25.0 2.50 0.0100 40.00 0.0980
5 50 15 80 15 0 1.00 0.06250 0 0
8 35 10 60 15 0 3.25 0.00834 0 0
11 30 10 50 10 0 3.00 0.02500 0 0
13 40 12 60 15 0 3.00 0.02500 0 0
854 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858

Table 3
Comparison of the optimal total cost rate and solution time values of the F-MSG method (by using four different initial generation set) with those found via some other methods
reported in the literature recently.

Method F-MSG EP TS IEP MDEA DEA

Set-1 Set-2 Set-3 Set-4
Optimal total cost rate value (R/h) 927.6278 927.7060 927.5855 927.6677 919.89 919.72 953.573 930.793 931.085
ST (s) 12.98 12.17 11.72 11.02 – – – 41.85 44.96

Table 4
Some intermediate results obtained from application of the F-MSG algorithm to the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 30-bus test system by using the third initial generation
set.

n Hn (R/h) Feasible/infeasible F nT (R/h) Dn+1 (R/h) Hn + Dn+1 (R/h) k p q

0 1019.6718 – – – – – – –
1 1000 Feasible 996.6211 50 950 7 0 1
2 950 Feasible 948.9183 50 900 6 0 2
3 900 Infeasible – +25 925 4 1 2
4 925 Infeasible – +12.5 937.5 2 2 2
5 937.5 Feasible 936.7841 6.25 931.25 3 2 3
6 931.25 Feasible 930.7390 3.125 928.125 3 2 4
7 928.125 Feasible 927.8051 1.5625 926.5625 1 2 5
8 926.5625 Infeasible – +0.78125 927.34375 1 3 5
9 927.34375 Infeasible – +0.390625 927.734375 1 4 5
10 927.734375 Feasible 927.6669 0.1953125 927.5390625 1 4 6
11 927.5390625 Infeasible – +0. 09765625 927.6367188 1 5 6
12 927.6367188 Feasible 927.5855 +0. 048828125 1 5 7

terms of both the total cost rate and the solution time. The best to-
tal cost rate produced by the F-MSG is less 25.98.75 (2.725% de-
crease), 3.4995 (0.3785% decrease), 3.2075 (0.3445% decrease) R/
h than those produced by IEP, DEA and MDEA, respectively. The
F-MSG method highly outperforms DEA and MDEA in term of the
solution time. The solution time of the best total cost rate solution
of the F-MSG is 3.836 and 3.570 times smaller than those given by
DEA and MDEA, respectively.
Some intermediate results obtained from application of the F-
MSG algorithm to the dispatch problem by using the third initial
generation set is shown in Table 4. The total cost rate is decreased
from the initial value of 1019.6718 R/h to 927.5855 R/h in 12 outer
loop iterations where seven of them give a feasible solution (feasi-
ble state). The algorithm stops at the 12th outer loop since D12 be-
comes less than 0.05 (=e2); because of this, the last feasible
solution, which is found at the 12th outer loop iteration and gives
927.5855 R/h, is taken as the optimal total cost rate value.
Table 5 shows the change of total cost rate values (feasible/
infeasible) with respect to number of the outer loop iterations in
application of the F-MSG algorithm to the considered non-convex
dispatch problem. It is seen from Tables 5 and 3 that the solution
time depends on the distance between the initial points and the
optimal solution point. The highest solution time produced by
the F-MSG algorithm is much lower than the best ones produced
by the other methods shown in Table 3. The change of the total
cost rate values (feasible/infeasible) versus number of outer loop
iterations during each solution procedure, where a different initial
generation set is used, are shown in Fig. 1. Convergence of the F-
MSG algorithm to the same optimal total cost rate value for differ-
ent initial generation sets is clearly seen from the figure. Since the
F-MSG method uses the initial complex bus voltages, the initial tap
ratios and the initial total cost rate value (being higher than the
optimal one) just to start the calculation procedure, and it does
not check if the initial cost rate is feasible, the initial cost rates
are shown by symbol ‘‘’’ in Fig. 1. Optimal generations and tap ra-
tio values are shown in Table 6.
4.2. Solving non-convex economic dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus
test system with F-MSG
All necessary data to solve the non-convex dispatch problem
considered in this section is taken from reference [2]. Bus 1 is cho-
sen as the reference bus and its pu complex voltage is taken as
1.05\0 pu. The lower and upper limits of voltage magnitudes for
all busses, except the reference bus, are taken as 0.9 pu and
1.10 pu, respectively. It is assumed that the tap values of all off
nominal tap changing transformers can be adjusted from 0.9 pu
to 1.1 pu with the step size of 0.01 pu. Similarly, it is accepted that
the susceptance values of all svar systems can be changed from 0
and 0.10 pu with step size of 0.005 pu. The parameters that are
explained in Section 3.1 are chosen as a ¼ 4500; k ¼ 1:5; e1 ¼
5  105 ; e2 ¼ 1; M ¼ 250; D1 ¼ 50 R=h; u11 ¼ ½0; 0; . . . 0; 0ð1208Þ ,
and c11 ¼ 4500; ‘ðkÞ ¼ k.
The dispatch problem that is considered in this section is solved
via the F-MSG method three times by using three different initial
value sets, which are shown in Table 7. The same F-MSG parame-
ters that are given in the above are used in those solutions. The
same dispatch problem was also solved by using EP (Evolutionary
Programming) and MIGA (Mixed-Integer Genetic Algorithm with
Arithmetic Operators) previously [2]. The optimal total cost rate
and solution time values produced by the F-MSG, EP and MIGA
are shown in Table 8. It is clearly seen from the table that the F-
MSG method outperforms EP and MIGA in terms of both the total
cost rate and the solution time (ST). The best total cost rate pro-
duced by the F-MSG is less 142.85 R/h and 41.856 R/h than those
produced by EP and MIGA, respectively. The F-MSG method highly
outperforms EP and MIGA in term of the solution time. The solution
time of the F-MSG is 11.789 and 10.41 times smaller than those given
by EP and MIGA, respectively. It is also seen from Tables 7 and 8 that
the solution time of the F-MSG method depends on the distance
between the initial points and the optimal solution point. Although
it is the case, the highest solution time produced by the F-MSG
algorithm is much lower than the best ones produced by the other
 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858 855

Change of total cost rate versus number of outer loop iterations for the four different initial points in application of the F-MSG method to the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 30-bus test system. Bold numbers represent feasible
1140

927.6278
set 4

14

–
–
–
1090 set 3
set 2

927.5390625
927.636719
set 1

Cost rate, (R/h)

1040

solid symbols represent a

13

–
–
feasible soltion point
990

927.5390625
927.7052

927.5855
940
12

–
927.5390625
927.636719

890
927.34375
927.7060

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Numbers of outer loop iterations, n
11

Fig. 1. Change of the total cost rate values (feasible/infeasible) versus number of
927.5390625
927.34375

outer loop iterations for four different initial points for IEEE 30-bus test system.
927.6669
926.5625
10

Table 6
The solution point generations, the total active loss, the solution time, the active
927.34375
927.7741

927.6677
926.5625

power flow on line 1 (between bus 1 and bus 2), the tap ratio (aline number,(busto bus))
and the total cost rate values when the solution is started from the three different
initial points.
9

Set-1 Set-2 Set-3 Set-4

927.34375
930.9801
927.9042
926.5625

PG1 (MW) 193.1858 193.0871 193.0883 193.0860

QG1 (MVAr) 19.9988 19.2820 19.7934 19.2834
PG2 (MW) 42.1122 41.9362 41.8535 41.9378
8

QG2 (MVAr) 14.1729 16.5869 17.7271 16.5907

936.7270
930.7251
927.8051
926.5625

PG5 (MW) 20.7065 20.6575 20.8224 20.6563

QG5 (MVAr) 33.8109 29.1394 28.5461 29.1391
PG8 (MW) 15.6644 14.7184 14.9624 14.7109
7

QG8 (MVAr) 26.3856 33.4648 33.3832 33.4708

PG11 (MW) 10.4604 11.7071 11.3477 11.7057
936.8512
930.7390
927.8179

QG11 (MVAr) 26.0545 26.0007 25.8547 26.0020

PG13 (MW) 11.9999 12.0000 11.9992 11.9988
925

QG13 (MVAr) 32.5401 26.4289 26.6144 26.4321

6

PLOSS (MW) 10.7447 10.7206 10.7110 10.7206

FT (R/h) 927.6278 927.7060 927.5855 927.6677
936.7841
930.7258

p12 (MW) 130.0003 130.0001 130.0002 129.9997

total cost rate values; bold and italic numbers show the optimal total cost rate values.

ST (s) 12.98 12.17 11.72 11.02

925
900

a11,(69) 1.012 1.002 0.994 0.992

5

a12,(610) 1.003 0.995 1.007 1.011

948.8215

936.6801

a15,(412) 0.997 0.989 0.992 1.003

a36,(2827) 0.990 1.000 0.998 0.995
925
900
4
996.4312
949.0153

925
900

methods shown in Table 8. Fig. 2 shows the change of total cost

3

rate values (feasible/infeasible) with respect to the number of

1048.2185

outer loop iterations during application of the F-MSG algorithm

997.0205
948.9183

to the considered non-convex dispatch problem by using three dif-

900
Outer loop iteration number (n)

ferent sets of initial values that are given in Table 7. It is clearly

2

seen from the figure that the F-MSG method converges the same
optimal total cost rate value when it is started from different initial
1097.5613
1049.8638
996.6211
949.0195

points in the solution space.

Some intermediate results obtained from application of the F-
1

MSG algorithm to the dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus test system

by using the third set of initial values is shown in Table 10. The
1122.1558

1019.6718
964.8567
1060.8892

total cost rate is decreased from the initial value of

15679.1783 R/h to 15419.1433 R/h in nine outer loop iterations
0

where six of them give a feasible solution. The algorithm stops at

the 9th outer loop since D9 becomes less than 1.0 (=e2); because
Set-1
Set-2
Set-3
Set-4
Table 5

of this, the last feasible solution, which is found at the 9th outer
856 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858

Table 7
Three different set of selected initial quantities for the F-MSG method to solve the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus test system.

Set-1 Set-2 Set-3

Selected Initial actual generations of the units
PG1 491.50 442.85 489.80
QG1 165.71 66.44 60.00
PG2 125.00 150.00 100.00
QG2 25.00 50.00 50.00
PG3 125.00 150.00 100.00
QG3 50.00 50.00 50.00
PG6 100.00 120.00 50.00
QG6 25.00 50.00 50.00
PG8 95.00 175.00 300.00
QG8 50.00 50.00 100.00
PG9 60.00 75.00 100.00
QG9 25.00 50.00 50.00
PG12 300.00 180.00 150.00
QG12 50.00 50.00 100.00
Calculated initial total active loss and total cost rate
PLOSS (MW) 45.705 42.034 38.996
FT (R/h) 15893.4807 15712.4114 15679.1783
Selected initial pu susceptance values for svar systems
bsvar18 0.060 0.055 0.050
bsvar25 0.100 0.100 0.095
bsvar53 0.075 0.065 0.050
Selected initial tap ratio values for off nominal tap ratio transformers
a19,(4–18) 0.970 0.970 0.970
a41,(7–29) 0.967 0.967 0.967
a80,(9–55) 0.940 0.940 0.940
a65,(10–51) 0.930 0.930 0.930
a54,(11–41) 0.955 0.955 0.955
a71,(11–43) 0.958 0.958 0.958
a66,(13–49) 0.900 0.900 0.900
a59,(14–46) 0.900 0.900 0.900
a58,(15–45) 0.955 0.955 0.955
a31,(20–21) 1.043 1.043 1.043
a36,(24–25) 0.970 0.970 0.970
a37,(24–26) 1.043 1.043 1.043
a46,(32–34) 0.975 0.975 0.975
a73,(40–56) 0.958 0.958 0.958
a76,(39–57) 0.980 0.980 0.980

Table 8 15900
The optimal total cost rate and solution time values produced by the F-MSG, MIGA
and EP for the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus test system. Set 1
15800 set 2
Method F-MSG MIGA EP
set 3
Total cost rate, FT, (R/h)

Set-1 Set-2 Set-3

15700
Optimal 15419.6938 15419.6428 15419.1434 15,461 15,562
total cost
rate (R/h) 15600
ST (s) 44.87 41.26 37.65 391.97 443.889

15500

loop iteration and gives 15419.1433 R/h, is taken as the optimal 15400
total cost rate value.
Some optimal quantities calculated via the F-MSG method, by 15300
starting it with three different set of initial values are shown in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Table 9. Numbers of outer loop iterations, n

Fig. 2. Change of the total cost rate values (feasible/infeasible) versus number of
5. Discussions and conclusion outer loop iterations for three different initial points for IEEE 57-bus test system.

In this paper, we propose a security constrained dispatch tech-

nique based on the F-MSG algorithm. The optimization model of
the dispatch problem is presented first. Since all constraints and
cost function can be written in terms of complex bus voltages,
tap settings of the off nominal turn ratio transformers and suscep-
tance values of the svar systems in the considered power system,
they are taken as independent variables. Since load flow equations
are inserted into the optimization model as equality constraints,
the system power loss is handled automatically. Later on, we pre-
sented the F-MSG algorithm to solve the security constrained dis-
patch problem. Since the F-MSG algorithm requires that all
 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858 857

Table 9
Some optimal quantities calculated via the F-MSG method by starting it with three different set of initial values for the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus test system.

Set-1 Set-2 Set-3

The optimal actual generations of the units
PG1 391.8561 397.8429 381.3765
QG1 40.8989 27.7887 30.8805
PG2 81.6542 77.0855 94.7366
QG2 60.0001 60.0005 59.9996
PG3 117.4110 117.5413 118.0414
QG3 60.0000 60.0000 59.9998
PG6 50.0017 51.6531 50.2690
QG6 19.7737 37.8178 18.4618
PG8 224.7205 243.7762 240.6676
QG8 19.8591 27.0696 53.0766
PG9 114.6232 90.0401 92.6024
QG9 49.9998 10.2184 34.4224
PG12 296.4411 299.9999 299.9963
QG12 151.1041 199.9999 175.7354
The solution time, the total active and reactive power loss and the total cost rate values at the optimal solution point
ST (s) 44.87 41.26 37.65
PLOSS (MW) 25.9083 27.1388 26.9018
QLOSS (MVAr) 11.1427 6.6957 7.0881
FT (R/h) 15419.6938 15419.6428 15419.1434
The optimal pu susceptance values for svar systems
bsvar18 0.020 0.020 0.020
bsvar25 0.005 0.005 0.005
bsvar53 0.005 0.005 0.005
The optimal tap ratio values for off nominal tap ratio transformers
a19,(4–18) 0.98 0.98 1.00
a41,(7–29) 0.95 0.95 0.95
a80,(9–55) 0.94 0.94 0.93
a65,(10–51) 0.95 0.95 0.95
a54,(11–41) 0.94 0.94 0.94
a71,(11–43) 0.96 0.96 0.96
a66,(13–49) 0.92 0.92 0.92
a59,(14–46) 0.92 0.92 0.92
a58,(15–45) 0.97 0.97 0.97
a31,(20–21) 1.02 1.02 1.02
a36,(24–25) 0.98 0.98 0.98
a37,(24–26) 1.05 1.04 1.05
a46,(32–34) 0.98 0.98 0.98
a73,(40–56) 0.98 0.97 0.98
a76,(39–57) 0.95 0.95 0.95

Table 10
Some intermediate results obtained from the application of the F-MSG algorithm to the non-convex dispatch problem of IEEE 57-bus test system by starting it by the third set of
initial values.

n Hn (R/h) Feasible/infeasible F nT (R/h) Dn+1 (R/h) Hn + Dn+1 (R/h) k p q

0 15679.1783 – – – – – – –
1 15,600 Feasible 15562.2266 100 15,500 15 0 1
2 15,500 Feasible 15484.5298 100 15,400 11 0 2
3 15,400 Infeasible – +50 15,450 4 1 2
4 15,450 Feasible 15448.9941 25 15,425 9 1 3
5 15,425 Feasible 15423.9541 12.5 15412.5 7 1 4
6 15412.5 Infeasible – +6.25 15418.75 2 2 4
7 15418.75 Infeasible – +3.125 15421.875 2 3 4
8 15421.875 Feasible 15421.0834 1.5625 15420.3125 6 3 5
9 15420.3125 Feasible 15419.1433 0.78125 3 3 6

inequality constraints in the optimization model should be ex-
pressed as corresponding equality constraints, the method given
in Section 2.2, which does not introduce any extra independent
variable into the model and reducing the solution time because
of it, is used for this purpose. In order to supply initial complex
bus voltages and a total cost rate value, being higher than the opti-
mal one, the F-MSG method needs a load flow solution with the se-
lected generations, susceptance values of the svar system and tap
settings just at the beginning of the solution procedure; no more
load flow solution is needed in the subsequent stages. The F-MSG
method can solve dispatch problems with non-convex total cost
rate curves. This is due to its search method and the formation of
the augmented sharp Lagrange function used by it. This fact is
demonstrated in the numerical example section where the outper-
formance of the F-MSG method against some evolutionary meth-
ods, reported in the literature, both in terms of solution time and
total cost rate value is shown. The convergence of the F-MSG meth-
od to the same optimal total cost rate value when it is started from
different initial points in the solution space is demonstrated in
both numerical solutions of Numerical Example section.
We are currently performing research on application of the F-
MSG method to some other non-convex economic power dispatch
858 S. Fadıl et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 43 (2012) 849–858
problems such as short-term hydrothermal scheduling problem
and pumped-storage hydraulic unit scheduling problem. To our
knowledge, the proposed solution technique has not been applied
to the problem given in this paper.
References
[1] Chiang CL. Genetic-based algorithm for power economic load dispatch. IET
Gener Transm Distrib 2007;1(2):261–9.
[2] Gaing ZL, Chang RF. Security-constrained optimal power flow by mixed-
integer genetic algorithm with arithmetic operators. IEEE power engineering
society general meeting; 2006.
[3] Chaturvedi KT, Pandit M, Srivastava L. Particle swarm optimization with time
varying acceleration coefficients for non-convex economic power dispatch. Int
J Electr Power Energy Syst 2009;31:249–57.
[4] Park JB, Jeong YW, Shin JR, Lee KY. An improved particle swarm optimization
for nonconvex economic dispatch problems. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2010;25(1):156–66.
[5] Abido MA. Optimal power flow using Tabu search algorithm. Electr Power
Compon Syst 2002;30:469–83.
[6] Sangiamvibool W, Pothiya WS, Ngamroo I. Multiple Tabu search algorithm for
economic dispatch problem considering valve-point effects. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2011;33:846–54.
[7] Yuryevich J, Wong KP. Evolutionary programming based optimal power flow
algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1999;14(4):1245–50.
[8] Ongsakul W, Tantimaporn T. Optimal power flow by improved evolutionary
programming. Electr Power Compon Syst 2006;34(1):79–95.
View publication stats
[9] Sayah S, Zehar K. Modified differential evolution algorithm for optimal power
flow with non-smooth cost functions. Energy Convers Manage
2008;49:3036–42.
[10] Amjady N, Sharifzadeh H. Solution of non-convex economic dispatch problem
considering valve loading effect by a new modified differential evolution
algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2010;32:893–903.
[11] Fadil S, Sarioglu GR. An active and reactive power dispatch technique using
pseudo spot price of electricity. Electr Mach Power Syst 1998;26(4):87–95.
[12] Farhat IA, El-Hawary ME. Interior point methods application in optimum
operational scheduling of electric power systems. IET Gener Transm Distrib
2009;3(11):1020–9.
[13] Vlachogiannis JG, Lee KY. Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for real
and reactive power dispatch. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2008;23(4):1627–36.
[14] Somasundaram P, Lakshmiramanan R, Kuppusamy K. Hybrid algorithm based
on EP and LP for security constrained economic dispatch problem. Electr
Power Syst Res 2005;76:77–85.
[15] Kasimbeyli R, Ustun O, Rubinov AM. The modified subgradient algorithm
based on feasible values. Optimization 2009;58(5):535–60.
[16] Jegatheesan R, Nor NM, Romlie MF. Newton-Raphson power flow solution
employing systematically constructed Jacobian matrix. In: 2nd IEEE
international conference on power and energy; 2008. p. 180–5.
[17] Burachik RS, Gasimov N, Ismayilova NA, Kaya CY. On a modified subgradient
algorithm for dual problems via sharp augmented Lagrangian. J Global Optim
2006;34:55–78.
[18] Rubinov AM, Gasimov RN. The nonlinear and augmented Lagrangians for
nonconvex optimization problems with a single constraint. Appl Comput Math
2002;1:142–57.
[19] Gasimov RN. Augmented Lagrangian duality and nondifferentiable
optimization methods in nonconvex programming. J Global Optim
2002;24:187–203.