International Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2(5) May 2013, Pages: 137-144

TI Journals
ISSN
2306-6474

International Journal of Engineering Sciences

www.waprogramming.com

An Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization Technique

for Solving the Non-convex Economic Dispatch Problems
Hardiansyah 1, Rusman 2
1
2

Department of Electrical Engineering, Tanjungpura University, Jl. A. Yani Potianak (78124), Indonesia.
Department of Electrical Engineering, State Polytechnic of Pontianak, Jl. A. Yani Potianak (78124), Indonesia.

AR TIC LE INF O

AB STR AC T

Keywords:

This paper presents a new approach for solving the non-convex economic dispatch (ED) problems
using an efficient particle swarm optimization (EPSO) technique. Many practical constraints of
generators, such as power loss, ramp rate limits, prohibited operating zones and valve point effect,
are considered. In this paper, an efficient particle swarm optimization (EPSO) mechanism is
proposed to deal with the equality and inequality constraints in the ED problems through the
application of Gaussian and Cauchy probability distributions. The EPSO approach introduces new
diversification and intensification strategy into the particles thus preventing PSO algorithm from
premature convergence. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, the numerical
studies have been performed for two different test systems, i.e. 6 and 15 generating units,
respectively. The results shows that performance of the proposed approach reveal the efficiently
and robustness when compared results of other optimization algorithms reported in literature.

Efficient particle swarm optimization

non-convex economic dispatch
ramp rate limits
prohibited operating zones
valve-point effect

2013 Int. j. eng. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1.

Introduction

The Economic Dispatch (ED) problem is one of the fundamental issues in power system operation, where, the total required load is
distributed among the generation units in operation. The main objective of ED problem is to minimizing total generation cost while
satisfying load and operational constraints. Traditionally, fuel cost function of a generator is represented by single quadratic function. But a
quadratic function is not able to show the practical behavior of generator. For modeling of the practical cost function behavior of a
generator, a non-convex curve is used in literature. The ED problem is a non-convex and nonlinear optimization problem. Due to ED
complex and nonlinear characteristics, it is hard to solve the problem using classical optimization methods.
Most of classical optimization techniques such as lambda iteration method, gradient method, Newtons method, linear programming,
Interior point method and dynamic programming have been used to solve the basic economic dispatch problem [1]. These mathematical
methods require incremental or marginal fuel cost curves which should be monotonically increasing to find global optimal solution. In
reality, however, the input-output characteristics of generating units are non-convex due to valve-point loadings and multi-fuel effects, etc.
Also there are various practical limitations in operation and control such as ramp rate limits and prohibited operating zones, etc. Therefore,
the practical ED problem is represented as a non-convex optimization problem with equality and inequality constraints, which cannot be
solved by the traditional mathematical methods. Dynamic programming (DP) method [2] can solve such types of problems, but it suffers
from so-called the curse of dimensionality. Over the past few decades, as an alternative to the conventional mathematical approaches, many
salient methods have been developed for ED problem such as genetic algorithm (GA) [3], improved tabu search (TS) [4], simulated
annealing (SA) [5], neural network (NN) [6], evolutionary programming (EP) [7]-[9], biogeography-based optimization (BBO) [10],
particle swarm optimization (PSO) [13]-[16], differential evolution (DE) [17], and gravitational search algorithm (GSA) [18].
Recently, Kennedy and Eberhart suggested a particle swarm optimization (PSO) based on the analogy of swarm of bird and school of fish.
In PSO, each individual makes its decision based on its own experience together with other individuals experiences [11]. The individual
particles are drawn stochastically towards the position of present velocity of each individual, their own previous best performance, and the
best previous performance of their neighbors. It was developed through simulation of a simplified social system, and has been found to be
robust in solving continuous non-linear optimization problems [12]. The main advantages of the PSO algorithm are summarized as: simple
concept, easy implementation, and computational efficiency when compared with mathematical algorithm and other heuristic optimization
techniques.
In this paper, a novel approach is proposed to solve the non-convex ED problems such as power loss, ramp rate limits, prohibited operating
zones and valve point effect using an efficient PSO (EPSO) technique. The application of Gaussian and Cauchy probability distributions
into the PSO is a useful strategy to ensure convergence of the particle swarm algorithm. Feasibility of the proposed method has been
demonstrated on two different test systems, i.e. 6 and 15 generating units. The results obtained with the proposed method were analyzed
and compared with other optimization results reported in literature.

* Corresponding author.
Email address: hardi_eka@yahoo.com

Hardiansyah and Rusman

138

Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013

2.

Economic Dispatch (ED) Problem Formulation

The objective of an ED problem is to find the optimal combination of power generations that minimizes the total generation cost while
satisfying equality and inequality constraints. The fuel cost curve for any unit is assumed to be approximated by segments of quadratic
functions of the active power output of the generator. For a given power system network, the problem may be described as optimization
(minimization) of total fuel cost as defined by (1) under a set of operating constraints.
n

FT Fi ( Pi ) a i Pi 2 bi Pi ci
i 1

(1)

i 1

where FT is total fuel cost of generation in the system ($/hr), ai, bi, and ci are the cost coefficient of the i-th generator, Pi is the power
generated by the i-th unit and n is the number of generators.

2.1 Active Power Balance Equation

For power balance, an equality constraint should be satisfied. The total generated power should be the same as total load demand plus the
total line loss.
n

PD Pi PLoss

(2)

i 1

where PD is the total load demand and PLoss is total transmission losses. The transmission losses PLoss can be calculated by using B matrix
technique and is defined by (3) as,
n

PLoss Pi Bij Pj B0i Pi B00

i 1 j 1

(3)

i 1

where Bij is coefficient of transmission losses and the B0i and B00 is matrix for loss in transmission which are constant under certain
assumed conditions.

2.2 Minimum and Maximum Power Limits

Generation output of each generator should lie between minimum and maximum limits. The corresponding inequality constraint for each
generator is

Pi min Pi Pi max for i 1,2,, n

(4)

where Pi min and Pi max are the minimum and maximum outputs of the i-th generator, respectively.

2.3 Ramp Rate Limits

The actual operating ranges of all on-line units are restricted by their corresponding ramp rate limits. The ramp-up and ramp-down
constraints can be written as (5) and (6), respectively.

Pi (t ) Pi (t 1) URi
Pi (t 1) Pi ( t ) DRi

(5)
(6)

where Pi(t) and Pi(t-1) are the present and previous power outputs, respectively. URi and DRi are the ramp-up and ramp-down limits of the
i-th generator (in units of MW/time period).
To consider the ramp rate limits and power output limits constraints at the same time, therefore, eqs. (4), (5) and (6) can be rewritten as
follows:

max{Pi min , Pi (t 1) DRi } Pi (t ) min{Pi max , Pi (t 1) URi }

(7)

An Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Solving the Non-convex Economic Dispatch Problems

139

Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013

2.4 Prohibited Operating Zones

In practical operation, the entire operating range of a generating unit is not always available due to physical operation limitations. Units
may have prohibited operating zones due to robustness in the shaft bearings caused by the operation of steam values or to faults in the
machines themselves or the associated auxiliaries, such as boilers, feed pumps etc. Such faults may lead to instability in certain ranges of
generator power output. Therefore, for units with prohibited operating zones, there are additional constraints on the unit operating range as
follows:

Pi min Pi Pi l,1

Pi Pi u,k 1 Pi Pi ,lk , k 2,3, , pzi

u
max
Pi , pzi Pi Pi , i 1,2, , n pz
where

(8)

Pi ,lk and Pi u, k are the lower and upper boundary of prohibited operating zone of unit i, respectively. Here, pzi is the number of

prohibited zones of unit i and npz is the number of units which have prohibited operating zones.
2.5 Valve Point Effects
For more rational and precise modeling of fuel cost function, the above expression of cost function is to be modified suitably. The
generating units with multi-valve steam turbines exhibit a greater variation in the fuel-cost functions [14]. The valve opening process of
multi-valve steam turbines produces a ripple-like effect in the heat rate curve of the generators. These valve-point effects are illustrated in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Valve-point effect

The significance of this effect is that the actual cost curve function of a large steam plant is not continuous but more important it is nonlinear. The valve-point effects are taken into consideration in the ED problem by superimposing the basic quadratic fuel-cost characteristics
with the rectified sinusoid component as follows:
n

FT Fi ( Pi ) ai Pi 2 bi Pi ci ei sin f i Pi min Pi
i 1

(9)

i 1

where FT is total fuel cost of generation in ($/hr) including valve point loading, ei, f i are fuel cost coefficients of the i-th generating unit
reflecting valve-point effects.

3.

Particle Swarm Optimization

3.1 Overview of Particle Swarm Optimization

The PSO method was introduced in 1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart [11]. The method is motivated by social behavior of organisms such as
fish schooling and bird flocking. PSO provides a population-based search procedure in which individuals called particles change their
position with time. In a PSO system, particles fly around in a multi dimensional search space. During flight each particles adjust its position

Hardiansyah and Rusman

140

Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013

according its own experience and the experience of the neighboring particles, making use of the best position encountered by itself and its
neighbors.
In the multidimensional space where the optimal solution is sought, each particle in the swarm is moved toward the optimal point by adding
a velocity with its position. The velocity of a particle is influenced by three components, namely, inertial, cognitive and social [12]. The
inertial component simulates the inertial behavior of the bird to fly in the previous direction. The cognitive component models the memory
of the bird about its previous best position, and the social component models the memory of the bird about the best position among the
particles. The particles move around the multidimensional search space until they find the optimal solution. The modified velocity of each
agent can be calculated using the current velocity and the distance from Pbest and Gbest as given below.

Vi k 1 W Vi k C1 r1 Pbest ik X ik C 2 r2 Gbest k X ik

(10)

where,

Vi k

velocity of individual i at iteration k

X ik

position of individual i at iteration k

inertia weight
acceleration coefficients

C1 ,C 2

Pbestik
Gbest
r1 , r2

best position of individual i at iteration k

best position of the group until iteration k
random numbers between 0 and 1

In this velocity updating process, the acceleration coefficients C1, C 2 and the inertia weight W are predefined and r1, r2 are uniformly
generated random numbers in the range of [0, 1]. In general, the inertia weight W is set according to the following equation [14]:
(W Wmin
W Wmax max
Itermax

Iter

(11)

where,
Wmax ,Wmin

initial and final weights

Itermax
Iter

maximum iteration number

current iteration number

The approach using (11) is called inertia weight approach (IWA). Using the above equation, a certain velocity, which gradually gets close
to Pbest and Gbest can be calculated. The current position (searching point in the solution space), each individual moves from the current
position to the next one by the modified velocity in (10) using the following equation:

X ik 1 X ik Vi k 1

(12)

where,
X ik 1

Vi

k 1

current position of individual i at iteration k+1

velocity of individual i at iteration k+1

Figure 2 shows the concept of the searching mechanism of PSO using the modified velocity and position of individual i based on (10) and
(12) if the value of W, C 1, C2 , r1, and r2 are 1.
The process of implementing the PSO is as follows:
Step 1: Create an initial population of individual with random positions and velocity within the solution space.
Step 2: For each individual, calculate the value of the fitness function.
Step 3: Compare the fitness of each individual with each Pbest. If the current solution is better than its Pbest, then
replace its Pbest by the current solution.
Step 4: Compare the fitness of all individual with Gbest. If the fitness of any individual is better than Gbest, then replace Gbest.
Step 5: Update the velocity and position of all individual according to (10) and (12).
Step 6: Repeat steps 2-5 until a criterion is met.

An Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Solving the Non-convex Economic Dispatch Problems

141

Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013

k 1
i

Gbest

k 1
i

k
i

Gbest

Pbest

Pbest

k
i

Figure 2. Concept of modification of searching point by PSO

3.2 Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization

In recent research, some modifications to the standard PSO are proposed mainly to improve the convergence and to increase diversity.
Coelho and Krohling [19] proposed the use of truncated Gaussian and Cauchy probability distribution to generate random numbers for the
velocity updating equation of PSO. In this paper, new approaches to PSO are proposed which are based on Gaussian probability
distribution (Gd ) and Cauchy probability distribution (Cd). In this new approach, random numbers are generated using Gaussian
probability function and/or Cauchy probability function in the interval [0,1].
The Gaussian distribution (Gd), also called normal distribution is an important family of continuous probability distributions. Each member
of the family may be defined by two parameters, location and scale: the mean and the variance respectively. A standard normal distribution
has zero mean and variance of one. Hence importance of the Gaussian distribution is due in part to the central limit theorem. Since a
standard Gaussian distribution has zero mean and variance of value one, it helps in a faster convergence for local search.
Here the Cauchy distribution Cd, is used to generate random numbers in the interval [0,1], in the social part and Gaussian distribution Gd,
is used to generate random numbers in the interval [0,1] in the cognitive part. The modified velocity equation (10) is given by

Vi k 1 K W .Vi k C1Gd ()(Pbestik X ik ) C2 C d ()(Gbest k X ik )

K

(13)

(14)
2

2 4

where C1 C 2 , 4
The convergence characteristic of the system can be controlled by . In the constriction factor approach (CFA), must be greater than
4.0 to guarantee stability. However, as increases, the constriction factor K decreases and diversification is reduced, yielding slower
response. Typically, when the constriction factor is used, is set to 4.1 (i.e. C1, C 2 = 2.05) and the constant multiplier K is thus 0.729.

4.

Simulation Results

To verify the feasibility of the proposed technique, two different power systems were tested: (1) 6-unit system considering power loss,
ramp rate limits and prohibited operating zones; and (2) 15-unit system with valve-point effects and transmission losses are considered.
Test Case 1: 6-unit system
The system consists of 6 generating units. The total load demand on the system is 1263 MW. The parameters of all generating units are
presented in Table 1 and Table 2 [13], respectively.
Table 1. Cost coefficients and unit operating limits
Unit

Pi min ( MW )

Pi max ( MW )

1
2
3
4
5
6

100
50
80
50
50
50

500
200
300
150
200
120

0.0070
0.0095
0.0090
0.0090
0.0080
0.0075

7.0
10.0
8.5
11.0
10.5
12.0

240
200
220
200
220
190

Hardiansyah and Rusman

142

Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013

Table 2. Ramp rate limits and prohibited operating zones

0

Unit

Pi (MW)

URi ( MW / h )

DRi ( MW / h )

1
2
3
4
5
6

440
170
200
150
190
110

80
50
65
50
50
50

120
90
100
90
90
90

Prohibited zones (MW)

[210, 240] [350, 380]
[90, 110] [140, 160]
[150, 170] [210, 240]
[80, 90] [110, 120]
[90, 110] [140, 150]
[75, 85] [100, 105]

The transmission losses are calculated by B matrix loss formula which for 6-unit system is given as:
0.0017
0.0012

0.0007
Bij
0.0001
0.0005

0.0002

0.0012 0.0007 - 0.0001 - 0.0005 - 0.0002

0.0014 0.0009 0.0001 - 0.0006 - 0.0001
0.0009 0.0031 0.0000 - 0.0010 - 0.0006

0.0001 0.0000 0.0024 - 0.0006 - 0.0008

- 0.0006 - 0.0010 - 0.0006 0.0129 - 0.0002

- 0.0001 - 0.0006 - 0.0008 - 0.0002 0.0150

B0 i 1.0e 3 0.3908 0.1297 0.7047 0.0591 0.2161 0.6635

B 00 0.0056

The obtained results for the 6-unit system using the EPSO method are given in Table 3 and the results are compared with other methods
reported in literature, including GA, PSO and IDP [20], RGA and GA-PSO [21]. It can be observed that EPSO can get total generation cost
of 15,441 ($/hr) and power losses of 12.2242 (MW), which is the best solution among all the methods. Note that the outputs of the
generators are all within the generators permissible output limit.

Table 3. Comparison of the best results of each methods (P D = 1263 MW)

Unit Output
P1 (MW)
P2 (MW)
P3 (MW)
P4 (MW)
P5 (MW)
P6 (MW)
Total power output (MW)
Total generation cost ($/hr)
Power losses (MW)

GA
474.8066
178.6363
262.2089
134.2826
151.9039
74.1812
1276.0217
15,459
13.0217

PSO
447.4970
173.3221
263.0594
139.0594
165.4761
87.1280
1275.9584
15,450
12.9584

IDP
450.9555
173.0184
263.6370
138.0655
164.9937
85.3094
1275.9794
15,450
12.9794

RGA
420.2342
199.4412
263.7234
120.0030
167.2319
105.1250
1275.7588
15,461.3
12.7588

GA-PSO
431.5408
184.272
259.7322
138.8306
168.6130
92.4211
1275.4093
15,446.1
12.4093

EPSO
447.0488
172.8162
261.5229
143.4107
163.0716
87.3595
1275.2242
15,441
12.2242

Test Case 2: 15-unit system

This system consists of 15 generating units and the input data of 15-generator system are given in Table 4 [13], [22]. Transmission loss Bcoefficients are taken from [22]. In order to validate the proposed EPSO method, it is tested with 15-unit system having non-convex
solution spaces, and the load demand is 2630 MW.
Table 4. Cost coefficients and unit operating limits
Unit

Pi min ( MW )

Pi max ( MW )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

150
150
20
20
150
135
135
60
25
25
20
20
25
15
15

455
455
130
130
470
460
465
300
162
160
80
80
85
55
55

0.000299
0.000183
0.001126
0.001126
0.000205
0.000301
0.000364
0.000338
0.000807
0.001203
0.003586
0.005513
0.000371
0.001929
0.004447

10.1
10.2
8.8
8.8
10.4
10.1
9.8
11.2
11.2
10.7
10.2
9.9
13.1
12.1
12.4

671
574
374
374
461
630
548
227
173
175
186
230
225
309
323

100
100
100
150
120
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300

0.084
0.084
0.084
0.063
0.077
0.084
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.042
0.035
0.035
0.035

An Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Solving the Non-convex Economic Dispatch Problems

143

Internat ional Jour nal of Engineeri ng Science s, 2(5) May 2013

The best fuel cost result obtained from proposed EPSO and other optimization algorithms are compared in Table 5 for load demands of
2630 MW. In Table 5, generation outputs and corresponding fuel cost and losses obtained by the proposed EPSO are compared with those
of GA, PSO and MPSO [22]. The proposed EPSO provide better solution (total generation cost of 32,579 $/hr and power losses of 28.2968
MW) than other methods while satisfying the system constraints. We have also observed that the solutions by EPSO always are satisfied
with the equality and inequality constraints.

Table 5. Best solution of 15-unit systems (PD = 2630 MW)

Unit power output
P1 (MW)
P2 (MW)
P3 (MW)
P4 (MW)
P5 (MW)
P6 (MW)
P7 (MW)
P8 (MW)
P9 (MW)
P10 (MW)
P11 (MW)
P12 (MW)
P13 (MW)
P14 (MW)
P15 (MW)
Total power output (MW)
PLoss (MW)
Total generation cost ($/h)

5.

GA [22]
415.3108
359.7206
104.4250
74.9853
380.2844
426.7902
341.3164
124.7876
133.1445
89.2567
60.0572
49.9998
38.7713
41.4140
22.6445
2668.2782
38.2782
33,113

PSO [22]
439.1162
407.9729
407.9729
129.9925
151.0681
459.9978
425.5601
98.5699
113.4936
101.1142
33.9116
79.9583
25.0042
41.4140
36.6140
2662.4306
32.4306
32,858

MPSO [22]
455.0000
390.8112
112.7000
124.3310
356.6001
443.3111
433.1601
91.1211
66.0001
30.2511
24.1401
51.6001
45.0300
23.3000
15.0000
2662.4306
32.4306
32,780

EPSO
453.8874
425.7893
130.0000
129.4776
274.8218
457.8592
464.4099
82.1737
25.2756
27.4704
60.4726
71.5669
25.0000
15.0981
15.0000
2658.2968
28.2968
32,579

Conclusion

This paper presents a new approach for solving the non-convex ED problems using an efficient particle swarm optimization (EPSO)
technique. The EPSO technique has provided the global solution in the 6-unit and 15-unit test systems and the better solution than the
previous studies reported in literature. The non-linear characteristics such as ramp rate limits, prohibited operating zones, valve point
effects and equality and inequality constraints have been considered for practical generation operation. The application of Gaussian and
Cauchy probability distributions in proposed approach is a powerful strategy to improve the global searching capability and escape from
local minima. Also, the equality and inequality constraints treatment methods have always provided the solutions satisfying the constraints.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

A. J Wood & B. F. Wollenberg (1996). Power Generation, Operation, and Control, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Z. X. Liang & J. D. Glover (1992). A Zoom Feature for a Dynamic Programming Solution to Economic Dispatch Including Transmission Losses.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 7(2): 544-550.
C. L. Chiang (2005). Improved Genetic Algorithm for Power Economic Dispatch of Units with Valve-Point Effects and Multiple Fuels. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems. 20(4): 1690-1699.
W. M. Lin, F. S. Cheng & M. T. Tsay (2002). An Improved Tabu Search for Economic Dispatch with Multiple Minima. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems. 17(1): 108-112.
K. P. Wong & C. C. Fung (1993). Simulated Annealing Based Economic Dispatch Algorithm. Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. C. 140(6): 509-515.
K. Y. Lee, A. Sode-Yome & J. H. Park (1998). Adaptive Hopfield Neural Network for Economic Load Dispatch. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems. 13(2): 519-526.
T. Jayabarathi & G. Sadasivam (2000). Evolutionary Programming-Based Economic Dispatch for Units with Multiple Fuel Options. European
Transactions on Electrical Power. 10(3): 167-170.
N. Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, & P. K. Chattopadhyay (2003). Evolutionary Programming Techniques for Economic Load Dispatch. IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation. 7(1): 83-94.
H. T. Yang, P. C. Yang & C. L. Huang (1996). Evolutionary Programming Based Economic Dispatch for Units with Non-Smooth Fuel Cost
Functions. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 11(1): 112-118.
A. Bhattacharya & P. K. Chattopadhyay (2010). Biogeography-Based Optimization for Different Economic Load Dispatch Problems. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems. 25(2): 1064-1077.
J. Kennedy & R. Eberhart (1995). Particle Swarm Optimization. in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks (ICNN'95), Perth, Australia, IV: 19421948.
Y. Shi & R. Eberhart (1998). A Modified Particle Swarm Optimizer. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
Anchorage, Alaska, 69-73.
Z. L. Gaing (2003). Particle Swarm Optimization to Solving the Economic Dispatch Considering the Generator Constraints. IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems. 18(3): 1187-1195.
J. B. Park, K. S. Lee, J. R. Shin & K. Y. Lee (2005). A Particle Swarm Optimization for Economic Dispatch with Nonsmooth Cost Functions. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems. 20(1): 34-42.
Hardiansyah, Junaidi & M. S. Yohannes (2012). Solving Economic Load Dispatch Problem Using Particle Swarm Optimization Technique.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications (IJISA). 4(12): 12-18.
Shi Yao Lim, Mohammad Montakhab & Hassan Nouri (2009). Economic Dispatch of Power System Using Particle Swarm Optimization with
Constriction Factor. International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power. 4(2): 29-34.
N. Noman & H. Iba (2008). Differential Evolution for Economic Load Dispatch Problems. Electric Power Systems Research. 78(8): 1322-1331.

144

Hardiansyah and Rusman

Inter nat ional Journal of Engineer ing Sci ences, 2(5) May 2013

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

S. Duman, U. Guvenc & N. Yorukeren (2010). Gravitational Search Algorithm for Economic Dispatch with Valve-Point Effects. International
Review of Electrical Engineering. 5(6): 2890-2895.
L. S. Coelho & C.S. Lee (2008). Solving Economic Load Dispatch Problems in Power Systems Using Chaotic and Gaussian Particle Swarm
Optimization Approaches. Electric Power and Energy Systems. 30: 297307.
R. Balamurugan & S. Subramanian (2008). An Improved Dynamic Programming Approach to Economic Power Dispatch with Generator
Constraints and Transmission Losses. Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology. 3(3): 320-330.
U. Guvenc, S. Duman, B. Saracoglu & A. Ozturk (2011). A Hybrid GA-PSO Approach Based on Similarity for Various Types of Economic
Dispatch Problems. Electronics and Electrical Engineering. 108(2): 109-114.
G. Shabib, A.G. Mesalam & A.M. Rashwan (2011). Modified Particle Swarm Optimization for Economic Load Dispatch with Valve-Point Effects
and Transmission Losses. Current Development in Artificial Intelligence. 2(1): 39-49.