Applied Mathematics and Computation 155 (2004) 391–405

www.elsevier.com/locate/amc

A solution to the optimal power flow

using genetic algorithm
M.S. Osman a, M.A. Abo-Sinna b,*
, A.A. Mousa b

a
High technological Institute, 10th Ramadan city, Egypt
b
Department of Basic Engineering Science, Faculty Of Engineering, Moenoufia University,
Shebin El-Kom, Egypt

Abstract
Optimal power flow (OPF) is one of the main functions of power generation oper-
ation and control. It determines the optimal setting of generating units. It is therefore of
great importance to solve this problem as quickly and accurately as possible. This paper
presents the solution of the OPF using genetic algorithm technique. This paper proposes
a new methodology for solving OPF. This methodology is divided into two parts. The
first part employs the genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain a feasible solution subject to
desired load convergence, while the other part employs GA to obtain the optimal so-
lution. The main goal of this paper is to verify the viability of using genetic algorithm to
solve the OPF problem simultaneously composed by the load flow and the economic
dispatch problem. Six buses system are used to highlight the goodness of this solution
technique.

2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Nonlinear programming; Genetic algorithms; Load flow; Economic dispatch

1. Introduction

The economic load dispatching (ELD) problem is one of key problems in

power system operation and planning. The ELD problem may be expressed by
minimizing the fuel cost of generators units under constraints depending on

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mabosinna2000@yahoo.com (M.A. Abo-Sinna).

0096-3003/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00785-9
392 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

load variations, the output of generators has to be changed to meet the balance
between loads and generation therefore, the ELD is one of the fundamental
problems in power system operation and planning. The primary objective of
the economic dispatch (ED) problem is to find a set of active powers delivered
by the committed generators to satisfy at any time the required demand subject
to unit technical limits at the production cost. It is therefore of great impor-
tance to solve this problem as quickly and accurately as possible. Conventional
techniques offer good results but when the search space is nonlinear and has
discontinuities these techniques become difficult to solve with a slow conver-
gence ratio and not always seeking to the optimal solution. New numerical
methods are then needed to cope with these difficulties specially, those with
high-speed search to the optimal and not being trapped in local minima. On the
other hand, there has recently been a great deal of interest in promising genetic
algorithm (GA) [1,3–6] and its application to various disciplines including
power system planning operation and control. Genetic algorithms are also
being applied to a wide range of optimization and learning problems in many
domains. Genetic algorithms lend themselves well to power system optimiza-
tion since they are known to exhibit robustness, require to auxiliary informa-
tion, and can offer significant advantages in a solution methodology and
optimization performance. In this paper we formulate optimal power flow
(OPF) problem in Section 2. Section 3 describes genetic algorithm techniques.
In Section 4, we review some of constraint-handling techniques in genetic al-
gorithm. In Section 5, we define the OPF problem variables. Section 6 describes
the proposed algorithm. In Section 7, sample six-bus system are solved and the
results are introduced in Section 8. Finally Section 9 describes the main fea-
tures of the proposed algorithm.

2. Optimal power flow formulation [11]

An OPF problem is generally formulated as

Min f ðxÞ
s:t: gi ðxÞ ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; q and
hj ðxÞ 6 0; j ¼ q þ 1; . . . ; m:
The objective function for the OPF reflects the costs associated with generating
power in the system. The quadratic cost model for generation of power will be
utilized:
2
CPGi ¼ ai þ bi PGi þ ci PGi
where PGi is the amount of generation in megawatts at generator i. The ob-
jective function for the entire power system can then be written as the sum of
the quadratic cost model at each generator.
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 393

X
Ng
2
f ðxÞ ¼ Ct ¼ ðai þ bi PGi þ ci PGi Þ
i

This objective function will minimize the total system costs, and does not
necessarily minimize the costs for a particular area within the power system,
where Ct is the total generation cost; ai , bi , ci , the cost function coefficients of
unit; PGi the real power generation of unit i; Ng , the total number of generation
units and i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; Ng .
The OPF equality constraints [7,9,11] reflect the physics of the power system
as well as the desired voltage set points throughout the system. The physics of
the power system are enforced through the power flow equations which require
that the net injection of real and reactive power at each bus sum to zero.
Therefore gðxÞ is
X
NB
DPp ¼ PGp
Pcp
Vp Vq Ypq cosðdp
dq
Hpq Þ
q¼1

X
NB
DQp ¼ QGp
Qcp
Vp Vq Ypq sinðdp
dq
Hpq Þ
q¼1

where PGp , QGp are the real and reactive power generations at bus P ; Pcp , Qcp the
real and reactive power demands at bus P ; VP , the voltage magnitude at bus P ;
Vq , the voltage magnitude at bus q; dp , the voltage angle at bus p; dq ; the voltage
angle at bus q; YPq , the admittance magnitude; Hpq , the admittance angle; NB ,
the total number of buses; P ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NB and q ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NB .
The inequality constraints of the OPF reflect the limits on physical devices in
the power system as well as the limits created to ensure system security.
Physical devices that require enforcement of limits include generators, tap
changing transformers, and phase shifting transformers.
PG min 6 PGp 6 PG max ; QG min 6 QGp 6 QG max ; Vmin 6 VP 6 Vmax ; dmin 6 dp 6 dmax

3. Genetic algorithm (GA)

GA, invented by Holland [6] in the early 1970s, is a stochastic global search
method that mimics the metaphor of natural biological evaluation. GAs op-
erates on a population of candidate solutions encoded to finite bit string called
chromosome. In order to obtain optimality, each chromosome exchanges in-
formation by using operators borrowed from natural genetic to produce the
better solution. Fig. 1 shows outline of GAs for optimization problems. The
GAs differ from other optimization and search procedures in four ways:
394 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

Fig. 1. Outline of GAs for optimization problems.

(1) GAs work with a coding of the parameter set, not the parameters them-
selves. Therefore GAs can easily handle the integer or discrete variables.
(2) GAs search from a population of points, not a single point. Therefore GAs
can provide a globally optimal solutions.
(3) GAs use only objective function information, not derivatives or other aux-
iliary knowledge. Therefore GAs can deal with the non-smooth, non-
continuous and non-differentiable functions which are actually existed in
a practical optimization problem.
(4) GAs use probabilistic transition rules, not deterministic rules.

4. Review of constraint-handling techniques [3–6]

One of the major components of any evolutionary system is the evaluation

function. Evaluation functions are used for assign a quality measure for in-
dividuals in a population. Whereas evolutionary computation techniques as-
sume the existence of an (efficient) evaluation function for feasible individuals,
there is no uniform methodology for handling (i.e., evaluating) unfeasible ones.
The simplest approach, incorporated by evaluation strategies and the version
of evolutionary programming (for numerical optimization problems), is to
reject unfeasible solutions. But several other methods for handling unfeasible
individuals have emerged recently. We review such methods (using a domain of
nonlinear programming problems). For an excellent full review of constraint-
handling techniques in genetic algorithm, the reader is referred to [4].

4.1. Methods based on penalty functions

The penalty function method is widely used in the mathematical program-

ming literature. It essentially adds to the objective function some terms which
punish a solution that is not feasible.
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 395

A general mathematical problem is defined as follows:

Max f ðxÞ
x

s:t: x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn Þ 2 X  Rn
gi ðxÞ 6 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k
hi ðxÞ ¼ 0; i ¼ k þ 1; . . . ; m

Let F  Rn be the feasible set for the above problem. Applying the idea of
penalty functions, the above constrained optimization problem can be trans-
formed into an unconstrained optimization problem. The objective function of
the unconstrained optimization problem, which will be used as the fitness
function in the associated genetic algorithm designed to solve the initial con-
strained problem, has the following format:


f ðxÞ; if x 2 F
evalðxÞ ¼
f ðxÞ þ penaltyðxÞ; otherwise

where penalty (x) is zero, if no violation occurs, and is positive, otherwise.

Usually, the penalty function is based on the distance of the solution form the
feasible region F, or on the effort to ‘‘repair’’ the solution, i.e., to force it into F.
The former case is the most popular one; in many methods a set of functions
fj ð1 6 j 6 mÞ is used to construct the penalty, where the function fj ðxÞ measures
the violation of the jth constraint in the following way:


maxf0; gj ðxÞg if 1 6 j 6 k
fj ðxÞ ¼
jhj ðxÞj if k þ 1 6 j 6 m

How the penalty function is designed and applied to infeasible solutions may
differ in important details across problems.

4.1.1. Static penalty function

The static penalty function assumes that for every constraint we establish a
family of intervals which determine an appropriate penalty coefficient Rij [4]. It
works as follows: (1) for each constraint, create several (l) levels of violation
(these levels measure the degree of violation, e.g., slightly or heavily); (2) for
each level of violation and for each constraint, create a penalty coefficient
Rij < 0 (i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; l, j ¼ 1; . . . ; m); higher degree of violation requires heavier
punishment (i.e., larger Rij ). The evaluation function has the following struc-
ture:
X
m
evalðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ Rij fj2 ðxÞ
j¼1
396 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

where the fj ðxÞ are as defined above and m is the number of constraints in the
problem the central issue in this method is the determination of the relative
magnitudes of the coefficients fRij j1 6 i 6 l; 1 6 j 6 mg.
The weakness of the method is in the number of parameters. For m con-
straints the method requires mð2l þ 1Þ parameters in total: m parameters to
establish number of intervals for each constraint, l parameters for each con-
straint, defining the boundaries of the intervals (levels of violation), and l
parameters for each constraint representing the penalty coefficient Rij .

4.1.2. Dynamic penalty function

Dynamic penalty function method differs from the previous one in that it
punishes ‘‘harder’’ as the number of generations increases. The implementation
of this method is through the following evaluation function:

a
X
m
evalðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ ðC  T Þ fjb ðxÞ
J ¼1

where C, a and b are constants. A reasonable choice for these parameters is

C ¼ 0:5, a ¼ b ¼ 2 i.e.,

2
X
m
evalðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ þ ð0:5T Þ fj2 ðxÞ
J ¼1

The method requires much smaller number of parameters than the first
method. Also, instead of defining several levels of violation, the pressure on
a
infeasible solutions is increased due to the ðC  T Þ component of the penalty
term: towards the end of the process (for high values of the generation number
t), this component assumes large values.

4.1.3. Rejection of unfeasible individuals

This ‘‘death penalty functions’’ method is a popular option in many evo-
lutionary techniques like evolutionary strategies or evolutionary programming,
this method rejects all infeasible solutions in the population. Thus, under this
method, if in some current population infeasible solutions result after the GA
operators are applied, these are simply eliminated and replaced by randomly
drawn new solutions.

4.2. Repair methods [4]

Repair algorithms enjoy a particular popularity in the evolutionary com-

putation community. The main problem facing this method is locating an
initial reference point for the purpose for initialization.
The proposed algorithm described later can overcome this problem easily
and it is relatively easy to repair an infeasible solution individual.
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 397

5. Optimal load flow via GA (OPFGA)

To solve optimal load flow via GA, variables defined as follow are needed
2 3
v
6 d 7    
6 7 vp ; 8 bus 6¼ slack dp ; 8 pv bus
x¼6 7 where v ¼ ; d¼ ;
4 pG 5 vf ; otherwise 0; otherwise
QG
   
PGp ; pv bus QGp ; 8 pv bus
pG ¼ ; QG ¼
0; otherwise 0; otherwise

The slack bus generation level is calculated so as to meet the active and reactive
power balance of power system using

X
NL X
N g
1

PGI ¼ PCJ þ PL
PGi

J i

where PL and QL are the active and reactive losses and NL is the total number of
buses.
The search space for genetic algorithm is the limits assigned to each variable:

• voltage magnitudes: 0.9–1.1 pu for pQ buses and 0.95–1.05 pu for pv buses;

• unit active power; the specified maximum and minimum values;
• unit reactive power; this is limited to ±75% of the unit maximum active
power (equal to 0.8 unit power factor).

6. Modified co-evolutionary genetic algorithm (M-COGA)

The main idea behind this algorithm is based on the concept of repair al-
gorithm (repair infeasible solution) by introducing new repairing function. But
the present algorithm consists of two sub-algorithm, the first one search for
initial reference point that satisfy the constraint with the desired precision. On
the other hand, the second one search for the optimal solution for the opti-
mization problem.
The present method propose a new repairing function (repairing infeasible
solution) which work efficiently with any type of problems the result produced
by this approach are compared against other numerical and evolutionary op-
timization techniques in several engineering design problems with different
kinds of constraints. The results obtained show that the new approach can
consistently outperform the other techniques using relatively small sub popu-
lation, and without a significant in terms of performance.
398 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

6.1. The proposed algorithm

The nonlinear programming problem can be defined as follows:

NLPP : optimize f ðxÞ

s:t :
F ¼ fx 2 Rn jgi ðxÞ 6 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q and hj ðxÞ ¼ 0 j ¼ q þ 1; . . . ; mg
S ¼ fx 2 Rn jlðxi Þ 6 xi 6 uðxi Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; ng

where the set S  Rn defines the search space and the set F  S defines a
feasible part of the search space.
At any point
x 2 F, the constraint gk ðÞ satisfy gk ð
xÞ ¼ 0 are called active
constraints at
x. By extension, equality constraints hj ðÞ are called active at all
points of F. Nonlinear equation hj ðxÞ ¼ 0 requires an additional parameter (w)
to define the precision of the system [4].
All nonlinear equations hj ðxÞ ¼ 0 ðfor j ¼ q þ 1; . . . ; mÞ are replaced by pair
of inequalities:
w 6 hj ðxÞ 6 w so we deal only with nonlinear inequalities.
In general, it is impossible to develop a deterministic method for the NLP in
the global optimization category, which would be better than the exhaustive
search. As stated by Gregory [2]

ItÕs unrealistic to expect to find one general NLP code thatÕs going to
work for every kind of nonlinear model. Instead, you try to select a code
that fits the problem you are solving. If your problem doesnÕt fit in any
category expect ‘‘general’’, or if you insist on a globally optimal solution
(except when there is no chance of encountering multiple local optima),
you should be prepared to have use a method that boils down to exhaus-
tive search, i.e., you have an intractable problem.

The proposed algorithm is divided into two parts. The first part employs
the genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain a feasible solution subject to desired
load convergence, while the other part employs GA to obtain the optimal
solution.
The proposed algorithm combines concept of co-evolution, repairing pro-
cedure (repairing infeasible solution) and elitist strategy. The main idea behind
it is repairing infeasible solutions to satisfy the feasible region, using an elitist
strategy to produce a faster convergence of the algorithm to the optimal so-
lution of the problem. Repairing procedure repairs the infeasible points to
satisfy the feasible space F. The working procedure of the algorithm is de-
scribed in the following manner.
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 399

6.2. Solution representation

The algorithm uses a floating point representation for potential solutions.

Each generation contain both feasible and infeasible individuals and we dis-
tinguish between them using flag pointer assigned to each individual.

6.3. Initialization stage

The population vectors in the first generation are initialized randomly sat-
isfying the search space S (the lower and upper bounds), while elitist individual
is initialized by zero. The first sub-algorithm initially locating an initial feasible
point that satisfying all constraint with the desired precision, since the second
sub-algorithm needs at least one feasible point as reference point to enter the
evolution process.

6.4. Initial feasible point

The first sub-algorithm starts with a determined precision parameter which

enable it to get a reference point. For every generation we search for updated
reference point, updated reference point represents the individual with the
more violation of constraints in each generation. So we locate an initial feasible
point nðtÞ that satisfying all constraint with the desired precision to enter the
evolution process (i.e., complete the algorithm procedure).

6.5. Repairing infeasible individuals

The idea of this technique is to separate any feasible individuals in a pop-

ulation from those that are infeasible by repairing infeasible individuals.
This approach co-evolves the population of infeasible individuals until they
become feasible individuals in this approach, feasible individuals (z) are gen-
erated on a segment defined by two points feasible individuals (i.e., initial
reference point nðtÞ 2 F) and infeasible individuals (x). But the segment may be
extended equally on both sides determined by a user specified parameter l.
Thus, a new feasible individual is expressed as
z1 ¼ c:x þ ð1
cÞ:fðtÞ
z2 ¼ ð1
cÞ:x þ c:fðtÞ

where c ¼ ð1 þ 2lÞd
l and d 2 ½0; 1 is a random generated number. Fig. 2

gives schematic view of possible sampling region.
For example, l ¼ 0:5 samples point that lie on an interval that extends 0.5d
on either side of the interval between the two points nðtÞ 2 F, x 2 I. On the
other hand, for l ¼ 0:0, is equivalent samples point between the two points.
400 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

µ.d d µ.d

Reference point Infeasible point

Fig. 2. Possible sampling region.

8
While (z is infeasible) { < z1 ¼ c:x þ ð1
cÞ:fðtÞ
Create random point z as: z2 ¼ ð1
cÞ:x þ c:fðtÞ
:
Check feasibility where c ¼ ð1 þ 2lÞd
l
}

Now all individual are in the feasible space.

6.6. Elitist strategy

Using an elitist strategy to produce a faster convergence of the algorithm to

the optimal solution of the problem. The elitist individual represents the more
fit point of the population. The use of elitist individual guarantees that the best
fitness individual never increase (minimization problem) from one generation
to the next generation (towards the end of the process).

6.7. Evolution process stage

The algorithm uses the objective function to evaluate fitness functions for
each individual. The algorithm applies tournament selection procedure/roulette
wheel selection to select the new population as previously discussed.

6.8. Stopping rule

The algorithm is terminated for either one of the following conditions is

satisfied:

• The maximum number of generations is achieved.

• When the genotypes (the genotypes structures) of the population of individ-
uals converges convergence of the genotype structure occur when all bit
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 401

positions in all strings are identical. In this case, crossover will have no fur-
ther effect.

7. Application of OPFGA

The proposed algorithm (Fig. 3) were implemented on the six buses system,
which is depicted in Fig. 4, which taken from Ref. [10], where NB ¼ 6, number
of equality constraints ¼ 2NB ¼ 12 and number of variables ¼ 20.
Appendix A contains information on the six-bus sample power system.
The test results obtained via OPFGA was found subject to: load flow
convergence (DPp and DQp < :0001) which compared with those from the so-
lution of the classical economic dispatch and standard load flow (ED + LF)
and those published by Weber [10] and also the solution of the optimal solution
via simulated annealing (OPFSA)[8]. Where in OPFSA the optimal solution
was found subject to: load flow convergence (DPp and DQp < 0:01). Table 1
shows GA parameter used for this simulation with the precision parameter
used in this algorithm.

Fig. 3. The structure of M_COGA.

402 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

Fig. 4. One-line diagram of six-bus system.

Table 1
The GA parameters
Population size 50
Mutation rate 0.01
Crossover rate 0.9
Crossover operator Single point
Selection operator Roulette wheel
Precision parameter 0.0001
User specified parameter 0.1

8. Results

Table 2 depicts the number of iterations and the large amount of computing
effort required to achieve the overall solution. This was expected due to GA is a
stochastic global search method. This code used for these studies was imple-
mented in C++ on Pentium III 450 MHz with 128 MB RAM computer.
As can be seen from Tables 3–5 a better ED was obtained without violating
line limits all lines have technical limit 100 MVA, except line 5 whose limit of
50 MVA [10].

9. Conclusions

This paper presents a new application of the GA technique in power system

problems, it is interesting to note that GA is useful as an optimization technique

Table 2
Computing effort
Iterations Time (s)
Six-bus system 200 31
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 403

Table 3
Economic dispatch for the six-bus test system
Classical optimization Non-classical optimization
methods methods
ED + LF Weber OPFSA OPFGA
Unit 1 (MW) 99.74 160.39 131.80 152.3252
Unit 2 (MW) 216.17 133.39 190.98 151.6563
Unit 3 (MW) 50.00 143.00 109.15 1.180913
Unit 4 (MW) 250.00 169.00 178.24 1.870893
Cost ($/h) 7860 8062 7938 7987.176416
Losses (MW) 15.91 5.38 6.33 9.2088
Load flow convergence: <0.01 <0.0001
(DPp and DQp )
Violating quantities 2 0 0 0

Table 4
Load flow solution of the six-bus system
Bus Voltage Angle Generation Demand
MW MVA MW MVA
1 1.001621 0.0 152.23252 84.7635 100 20
2 0.987467 1.717332 151.65663 )26.5032 100 20
3 1.010965 )4.203926 118.0913 112.1499 100 20
4 0.974785 )0.01340 187.0893 )25.6332 100 20
5 0.973218 )2.619713 0.0 0.0 100 50
6 0.967386 )4.438276 0.0 0.0 100 10

Table 5
Lines power flow of the six-bus system
Line From To P (MW) Losses (MW)
1 1 2 )15.2385 0.864
2 2 4 35.5621 0.5198
3 1 5 67.5701 1.9581
4 3 5 )7.9323 1.089
5 4 5 44.3846 0.9822
6 3 6 26.0327 0.9583
7 4 6 77.7561 2.8374
Overall losses 9.2088

to solve OPF. The method employs GA to get a feasible point that satisfy the
equality constraints with the desired precision. Due to space limitation, this
paper only reports the results of a six-bus system; however, the approach in
general works for a general network for any number of buses.
OPFGA has the advantage not to calculate differential equations neither the
Jacobean matrix unlike classical methods. This fact permits the definition of
404 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405

any type of objective functions regardless of mathematical condition of con-

tinuity, concavities, etc.
The main disadvantages of this proposal is the large computing time re-
quired to obtain the optimal solution this situation was expected because GA is
a stochastic search method.
The proposed method that combines concept of co-evolution, repairing
procedure, elitist strategy has applied to the OPF problem and obtained very
reasonable results.
This method would be very useful for power planner and/or operator to
treat not only the cost but also with environmental objective of power sys-
tem.

Appendix A

It contains information on the six-bus sample power system.

The line characteristics of the system are shown in Table A.1. The bus
characteristics of the system are shown in Table A.2. The economic informa-
tion of the system is shown in Table A.3.

Table A.1
Line characteristics for six-bus system
From bus To bus Resistance Reactance Line charging Line limit
[P.U] [P.U] [P.U] [MVA]
1 2 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
1 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
2 4 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
3 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
3 6 0.04 0.08 0.02 100
4 5 0.04 0.08 0.02 50
4 6 0.04 0.08 0.02 100

Table A.2
Bus characteristics for six-bus system
Bus number Load [MW] Load [MVAR] Min. generation [MW] Max. generation [MW]
1 100 20 50 250
2 100 20 50 250
3 100 20 50 250
4 100 20 50 250
5 100 50 0 0
6 100 10 0 0
 M.S. Osman et al. / Appl. Math. Comput. 155 (2004) 391–405 405

Table A.3
Economic information for six-bus system
Generator bus a ½h$ $
b ½MW h
 c ½MW$ 2 h
1 105 12.0 0.012
2 96 9.6 0.0096
3 105 13.0 0.0130
4 94 9.4 0.0094

References

[1] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison
Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
[2] J. Gregory, Nonlinear programming FAQ, Usenet sci.answers. Available from ftp://
rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.answers/nonlinear-programming-faq, 1995.
[3] M. Gen, R. Cheng, Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization, John Wily & Sons,
New York, 2000.
[4] Z. Michalewicz, A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary computation
methods, in: Proceeding of the Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 135–155.
[5] Z. Michalewicz, Schoenauer, Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization
problems, Evolutionary Computation 4 (1) (1996) 1–32.
[6] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures ¼ Evolution Programs, third ed.,
Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[7] I.J. Nagrath, Modern Power System Analysis, Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[8] C.A. Roa-Sepulveda, B.J. Pavez-lazo, A solution to the optimal power flow using simulated
annealing, Electrical Power and Energy Systems 25 (2003) 47–57.
[9] W.D. Stevenson, Elements of Power System Analysis, fourth ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1982.
[10] J.D. Weber, Implementation of a Newton-based optimal power flow into a power system
simulation environment, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign; Urbana-Illinois. Available from http://energy.ece.uiuc.edu/jamie
(1997).
[11] A.J. Wood, B.F. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and Control, Wiley and Sons,
1996.