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

net/publication/262388552

Heuristic and metaheuristic optimization techniques with application to

power systems

Conference Paper · October 2010

CITATIONS READS

8 84

1 author:

Mihai Gavrilas
Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi
58 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihai Gavrilas on 23 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

Heuristic and Metaheuristic Optimization Techniques with

Application to Power Systems
MIHAI GAVRILAS
Power System Department
“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi
21-23 D. Mangeron Blvd., 700050, Iasi
ROMANIA
mgavril@ee.tuiasi.ro http://www.ee.tuiasi.ro/~mgavril

Abstract: - The development of modern wide-area power systems, as well as recent trends towards the creation of
sustainable energy systems have given birth to complex studies addressing technical, but also economical and
environmental, aspects related to simple or multi-objective optimization problems. Recently, heuristic and
metaheuristic approaches that apply combinations of different heuristics with or without traditional search and
optimization techniques were proposed to solve such problems. This paper provides basic knowledge about most
widely used (meta)heuristic optimization techniques, and their application in optimization problems in power systems.

Key-Words: - Heuristic optimization, Metaheuristic optimization, Power systems, Efficiency.

1 Introduction complexity of problems faced by power engineers,

Optimization is a branch of mathematics and
computational science that studies methods and
techniques specially designed for finding the “best”
solution of a given “optimization” problem. Such
problems aim to minimize or maximize one or more
objective functions based on one or more dependent
variables, which can take integer or real values.
Optimization is widely applied in fields such as
engineering, commerce, transportation, finance,
medicine, and any decision making processes.
Numerous conventional optimization techniques have
been designed to solve a wide range of optimization
problems, such as Linear Programming, Nonlinear
Programming, Dynamic Programming or Combinatorial
Optimization [1]. However, many of the existing
conventional optimization techniques applied to real
world problems suffer from a marked sensitivity with
respect to problems such as: difficulties in passing over
local optimal solutions; risk of divergence; difficulties in
handling constraints or numerical difficulties related to
computing first or second order derivatives [1].
To overcome these problems, heuristic and
metaheuristic techniques were proposed in the early 70‟s
[3]. Unlike exact methods, (meta)heuristic methods have
a simple and compact theoretical support, being often
based on criteria of empirical nature. These issues are
responsible for the absence of any guarantee for
successfully identifying the optimal solution.
Many optimization problems encountered in the field
of Power Systems may be approached using heuristic
and metaheuristic techniques. Moreover, as in many
other situations, due to the large diversity and
researchers in the field of Power Systems were pioneers
in using heuristic and metaheuristic techniques for
solving optimization problems [4].
This paper presents an overview of the most popular
(meta)heuristic techniques used for solving typical
optimization problems in the field of Power Systems.
Thus, Sections 2 and 3 describe generic heuristic
methods and metaheuristics. Then, Section 4 considers
typical optimization problems in power engineering and
for each such problem a brief description is presented.
The author assumed the task to prepare the
presentation of the recent advances and applications in
(meta)heuristic-based optimization in power systems
considering the fact that most numerous and valuable
contributions belong to the worldwide scientific
community. Results of research undertaken by the
author, together with other fellows, were added with
modesty to the numerous other theoretical and practical
results presented in this paper.
2 Heuristic optimization
Difficulties faced by exact, conventional optimization
methods often end up by preventing these methods to
determine a solution to the optimization problem within
a reasonable amount of time. To avoid such cases,
alternative methods have been proposed, which are able
to determine not perfectly accurate, but good quality
approximations to exact solutions. These methods,
called heuristics, were initially based essentially on
experts‟ knowledge and experience and aimed to explore
the search space in a particularly convenient way.

ISSN: 1792-5967 95 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7

 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Heuristics were first introduced by G. Polya in 1945
[2] and were developed later in the 70‟s, when various
heuristics were also introduced for specific purpose
problems in different fields of science and technique,
including electrical engineering [3]. Basically, a
heuristic is designed to provide better computational
performance as compared to conventional optimization
techniques, at the expense of lower accuracy. However,
the „rules of thumb” underlying a heuristic are often
very specific to the problem under consideration.
Moreover, since heuristics are problem solving
techniques based on solvers‟ expertise, they use domain-
specific representations, and hence general heuristics
can be successfully defined only for fundamental
problem solving methods, such as search methods [6].
A wide range of heuristic search strategies can be
cited from the literature, from uninformed approaches
(basically non-heuristic) like Depth First Search (DeFS),
Breadth First Search (BrFS), or Uniform Cost Search
(UnCS), to informed approaches (mainly heuristic) like
Best First Search (BeFS), Beam Search (BeS) or the A*
Search (A*S) [5,6,7,8,10]. Uninformed or blind search
strategies are applied with no information about the
search space, other than the ability to distinguish
between an intermediate-state and a goal-state.
Informed search strategies use problem-specific
knowledge. Usually, this knowledge is represented using
an evaluation function that assesses either the quality of
each state in the search space, or the cost of moving
from the current state to a goal-state, using various
possible paths. In case of BeFS, among all possible
states at one level, the algorithm chooses to expand the
most “promising” one in terms of a specified rule [9].
BeS is an enhanced version of the BeFS algorithm.
The improvements consist in reducing the memory
requirements [11]. With this aim in view, BeS is defined
based on BrFS, which is used to build the search tree. At
each level, all new states are generated and the heuristic
function is computed for each state that a inserted in a
list ordered by heuristic function values. The list is of
limited length, equal to the so called “beam width”. This
limits the memory requirements, but the compromise
risk to pruning out the path to the goal-state.
The A* search algorithms uses a BeFS strategy, and a
heuristic function that combines two metrics: the cost
from the origin to the current state (or the cost-so-far)
and an estimation of the cost from the current state to a
goal-state (or the cost-to-goal). The A* algorithm is
considered to be very efficient [7].
One of the shortcomings of the search strategies
presented above is the numerical inefficiency of the
search process, especially for high dimensional
problems. Thus, significant efforts were devoted to
identify new heuristics able to successfully cope with the
above problems.
ISSN: 1792-5967
3 Metaheuristics
The new paradigms were called metaheuristics and were
first introduced at mid-80s as a family of searching
algorithms able to approach and solve complex
optimization problems, using a set of several general
heuristics. The term metaheuristic was proposed in [18]
to define a high level heuristic used to guide other
heuristics for a better evolution in the search space.
Although traditional stochastic search methods are
mainly guided by chance (solutions change randomly
from one step to another), they can be used in
combination with metaheuristic algorithms to guide the
search process and to accelerate the convergence.
Most metaheuristics algorithms are only
approximation algorithms, because they cannot always
find the global optimal solution. But the most attractive
feature of a metaheuristic is that its application requires
no special knowledge on the optimization problem to be
solved, hence it can be used to define the concept of
general problem solving model for optimization
problems or other related problems [4, 12].
Since their introduction in the mid-80s till now,
metaheuristic methods for solving optimization
problems have been continuously developed, allowing
addressing and solving a growing number of such
problems, previously considered difficult or even
impossible to solve. These methods include simulated
annealing, tabu search, evolutionary computation
techniques, artificial immune systems, memetic
algorithms, particle swarm optimization, ant colony
algorithm, differential evolution, harmony search,
honey-bee colony optimization etc
The next section presents a brief review of basic
issues for the most commonly used metaheuristics cited
above. Several applications of these methods in the field
of power systems will be presented in section 5.
4 Metaheuristic methods
4.1 Simulated Annealing
Studies on Simulated Annealing (SA) were developed in
the 1980s based on the Metropolis algorithm [17], which
was inspired by statistical thermodynamics, where the
relationship between the probabilities of two states A
and B, with energies EA and EB, at a common tempera-
ture T, suggests that states with higher energies are less
probable in thermodynamic systems. Thus, if the system
is in state A, with energy EA, another state B of lower
energy (EB < EA) is always possible. Conversely, a state
B of higher energy (EB > EA) will not be excluded, but it
will be considered with probability exp(- (EB – EA)/T).
Application of Metropolis algorithm in search
problems is known as SA and is based on the possibility
of moving in the search space towards states with poorer
96 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Table 1 – Pseudocode for Simulated Annealing
Data: initial approximation X0, initial temperature T,
number of iteration for a given temperature nT.
Optimal solution:Xbest ← X0.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
n = 0; i = 0;
WHILE (n < nT) DO
choose a new approximation Y
accept or reject the new approximation based
on the Metropolis rule: Xi+1 = G(Xi,Y,T)
update optimal solution: if Xi+1 is better than
Xbest, then Xbest ← Xi+1
next n-iteration (n ← n+1)
update temperature T
next T-iteration (i ← i+1)
values of the fitness function. Starting from a
temperature T and an initial approximation Xi, with a
fitness function Fitness(Xi), a perturbation is applied to
Xi to generate a new approximation Xi+1, with
Fitness(Xi+1). If Xi+1 is a better solution then Xi, i.e.
Fitness(Xi+1) > Fitness(Xi), the new approximation will
replace the old one. Otherwise, when Fitness(Xi+1) <
Fitness(Xi), the new approximation will be considered
with probability pi=exp(-[Fitness(Xi)–Fitness(Xi+1)] / T).
The above steps are repeated for a given number of
times for a constant value of temperature, then
temperature is updated by decreasing its value, and the
iterative process continues until a stopping criterion is
met. The pseudocode for SA is shown in Table 1.
4.2 Tabu Search
Tabu Search (TS) was introduced by [18], as a search
strategy that avoids returning to solutions already visited
by maintaining a Tabu list, which stores successive
approximations. Since the Tabu list is finite in length, at
some point, after a number of steps, some solutions can
be revisited. Adding a new solution to a complete Tabu
list is done by removing the oldest one from the list,
based o a FIFO principle (First In – First Out).
New approximations can be generated in different
ways. The pseudocode presented in Table 2 uses the
following procedure: at each step a given number of new
approximations are generated in the neighborhood of the
current solution X, but considering as feasible only the
ones which are not in the Tabu list. Amongst the new
approximations the best one is chosen to replace the
current solution, being also introduced in the Tabu list.
4.3 Evolution Strategy
Evolution Strategy (ES) was first proposed in [13] as a
branch of evolutionary computation. It was further
developed after 1970‟s. An ES may be described by two
main parameters: number of parents in a generation μ,
and number of offsprings created in a generation λ. A
ISSN: 1792-5967
Table 2 – Pseudocode for Tabu Search
Data: length of the Tabu list LT, number of
intermediate solutions N.
Initialization: approximation X, Tabu list TABU={X}.
Optimal solution: Xbest ← X.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
prepare the Tabu list: if Length(TABU) = LT,
then delete the oldest item from the list.
generate N new aproximations in the
neighborhood of X and select the best candidate-
solution Y which is not TABU.
update current approximation X ← Y and add it
in the Tabu list: Add(TABU,X).
update optimal solution: if X is better than Xbest,
then Xbest ← X
Table 3 – Pseudocode for Evolution Strategy
Data: number of parents μ and offsprings λ (λ = k· μ).
Initialization: create initial population P = {Pi}, i=1 …
λ, and initialize the best solution Best ← void.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
evaluate P and update the best solution, Best.
reproduction stage: select μ fittest individuals from
P and create parent-population, R = {Rj}, j=1 … μ.
mutation stage: apply stochastic changes to parents
and create k = λ / μ offsprings for each parrent:
[ R = {Rj}, j=1… μ ] → [ Q = {Qi}, i=1… λ ]
mutation stage: replace the current population with
the mutated one:
[ Pi = Qi, i=1 … λ ]
common notation is ES(μ, λ). The main genetic operator
that controls the evolution from one generation to
another is mutation.
In a general ES(μ, λ) model (where λ = k · μ), each
generation starts with a population of λ individuals. The
fitness of each individual is computed to rank them in
descending order of their fitness. Amongst the current
population, only the first μ fittest individuals are
selected to create the parent population (this selection
phase is sometimes called truncation). Next, each of the
μ parents will create by repeated mutation k = λ / μ
offsprings. Eventually, the new, mutated population will
replace the old one and the algorithm reiterates. The
pseudocode for the ES(μ, λ) model is shown in Table 3.
4.4 Genetic Algorithms
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a step forward of ES in
the general framework of Evolutionary Computation.
GAs have been designed and developed by Holland [15]
and later by Goldberg [26] and De Jong [25].
GAs are search strategies that are based on specific
mechanisms of genetics and natural selection, using
three basic operators: selection, crossover and mutation.
For each generation, selection is used to choose parent
individuals , based on their fitness function. After
97 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Table 4 – Pseudocode for Genetic Algorithm
Data: population size N, crossover rate ηc and mutation
rate ηm
Initialization: create initial population P={Pi}, i=1…N,
and initialize the best solution Best ← void.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
evaluate P and update the best solution Best.
initialize offspring population: R ← void.
create offsprings:
FOR k = 1 TO N / 2 DO
selection stage: select parents Q1 and Q2 from
P, based on fitness values.
crossover stage: use crossover rate ηc and
parents (Q1;Q2) to create offsprings (S1; S2).
mutation stage: use mutation rate ηm to apply
stochastic changes to S1 and S2 and create
mutated offsprings T1 and T2.
add T1 and T2 to offspring population:
R ←R { T1 and T2 }.
replace current population P with offspring
population R: P ← R.
elitism: replace the poorest solution in P with the
best solution stored in Best.
selecting a pair of parent chromosomes, they enter the
crossover stage to generate two offsprings. Crossover is
useful to create new individuals or solutions that inherit
good characteristics from both parents. Newly created
individuals will be altered by small-scale changes in the
genes, applying mutation operator. Mutations ensure the
introduction of "novelty" in the genetic material. After
completing the offspring population, this will replace
the parents from the previous generation and the
selection-crossover-mutation process will be resumed
for a next generation. To avoid losing the best solution
due to the stochastic character of the search procedure
described above, [25] has proposed to apply a special
replacement procedure called “elitism” that makes a
copy of the best individual from the current population
and transfer it unchanged in the next generation. The
pseudocode for the GA is shown in Table 4.
4.5 Differential Evolution
Differential Evolution (DE) was developed mainly by
[23] as a new evolutionary algorithm. Unlike other
evolutionary algorithms, DE change successive
approximations of solutions or individuals based on the
differences between randomly selected possible
solutions. This approach uses indirectly information
about the search space topography in the neighborhood
of the current solution. When candidate-solutions are
chosen in a wide area, mutations will have large ampli-
tudes. Conversely, if candidate-solutions are chosen in a
narrow area, mutations will be of small importance.
For each generation, all current individuals that
describe possible solutions are considered as reference
ISSN: 1792-5967
Table 5 – Pseudocode for Differential Evolution
Data: population size parents N, weighting factors α, β.
Initialization: create initial population P={Pi}, i=1…N.
Evaluate current population P and store the fittest
individual as Best.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
FOR i = 1 TO N DO
select two different individuals Xr1 and Xr2,
other than Xi .
apply mutation: Xi‟= Xi + α·( Xr1 –Xr2).
apply crossover: Xi‟‟= Xi + β·( Xi –Xi‟).
evaluate Xi‟‟ and replace Xi with Xi‟‟ anytime
when Fitness (Xi‟‟) > Fitness (Xi).
update the best solution Best.
solutions to which the mechanisms of DE are applied.
Thus, for a reference individual Xi, two different
individuals Xr1 and Xr2, other than Xi, are randomly
selected and an arithmetic mutation is applied to Xi
based on the difference between Xr1 and Xr2, to produce
a mutant Xi’. Then an arithmetic crossover, based on the
difference between current and mutated solutions, is
applied to generate the new estimation Xi’’. Xi’’ will
replace the reference solution and the best one anytime
when its fitness function is better. The pseudocode for
the DE algorithm is shown in Table 5.
4.6 Immune Algorithms
The Immune Algorithm (IA) was proposed first be [19],
to simulate the learning and memory abilities of
immune systems. The IA is a search strategy based on
genetic algorithm principles and inspired by protection
mechanisms of living organisms against bacteria and
viruses. The problem coding is similar for both GA and
IA, except that chromosomes in GA are called
antibodies in IA, and problem formulation, i.e. objective
or fitness functions are coded as antigens in IA.
The basic difference between AG and IA lies in the
selection procedure. Instead of fitness functions, IA
computes affinities between antibodies and / or between
antibodies and antigens. Based on the affinities between
antibodies and antigens a selection and reproduction
pool (the proliferation pool), is created using antibodies
with greatest affinities. The proliferation pool is created
by clonal selection: the first M antibodies, with highest
affinities relative to antigens, are cloned (i.e. copied
unchanged) in the proliferation pool. Using a mutation
rate inversely proportional to the affinity of each
antibody to antigens, mutations are applied to the
clones. Then affinities for new, mutated clones and
affinities between all clones are computed, and a limited
number of clones Nrep (with lowest affinities) are
replaced by randomly generated antibodies, to introduce
diversity. Elitism can be applied to avoid losing best
solutions. The pseudocode of IA is described in Table 6.
98 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Table 6 – Pseudocode for Immune Algorithm
Data: population, clonal and replacement size N, M, Nrep.
Initialization: create initial population P.
Evaluate affinities for antibodies in current population P.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
clonal selection: clone the first M antibodies from P,
with highest affinity. Number of clones for an
antibody is proportional to its affinity. Number of
clones in the proliferation pool Q is N.
mutation: apply stochastic changes to clones from
the proliferation pool Q, with mutation rate inversly
proportional to their affinity.
replacement: evaluate affinities for mutated antibo-
dies and replace the worst Nrep clones from
population Q with randomly generated antibodies.
elitism: evaluate new created antibodies and replace
the worst antibody from Q with the best one from P.
next generation: replace current population with the
one from the proliferation pool: P ← Q.
4.7 Particle Swarm Optimization
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) was developed by
Kennedy and Eberhart in the mid-1990s [21]. PSO is a
stochastic optimization technique which emulates the
“swarming” behavior of animals such as birds or
insects. Basically, PSO develops a population of
particles that move in the search space through
cooperation or interaction of individual particles. PSO is
basically a form of directed mutation.
Any particle i is considered in two parts: particle‟s
location Xi and its velocity Vi. At any moment, the
position of a particle i is computed based on its prior
position Xi and a correction term proportional with its
velocity ε·Vi. In its turn, the velocity assigned to each
particle is computed using four components: (i) the
influence of the previous value of velocity Vi; (ii) the
influence of the best personal solution for particle i, XiP;
(iii) the influence of the best local solution so far for
informants of particle i, XiL and (iv) the influence of the
best global solution so far for the entire swarm, XG.
These components are taken into consideration using
three weighting factors, denoted by a, b and c. The
pseudocode of PSO is presented in Table 7.
4.8 Ant Colony Optimization
The classic ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm,
proposed by Marco Dorigo in 1992 [22], is inspired
from the natural behaviour of ants, which are able to
find their way using pheromone trails. Ants travel
between two fixed points A and B on the shortest route,
leaving behind them trail of pheromone that mark
chosen paths. After the first ant reaches the B point, it
returns in A following its own pheromone trail, and
doubling the pheromone layer density. Further, more
ants will probabilistically prefer to choose a path with
higher pheromone density, and gradually an increasing
ISSN: 1792-5967
Table 7 – Pseudocode for Particle Swarm Optimization
Data: population size N, personal-best weight α, local-
best weight β, global-best weight γ, correction factor ε.
Initialization: create initial population P.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
select the best solution from the current P: Best.
select global-best solution for all particles: BG.
apply swarming:
FOR i = 1 TO N DO
select personal-best solution for particle Xi: BiP.
select local-best solution for particle Xi: BiL.
compute velocity for particle Xi:
FOR j = 1 TO DIM DO
generate correction coefficients: a = α ·
rand(); b = β · rand(); c = γ · rand().
update velocity of particle Xi along
dimension j:
Vij = Vij + a · (BijP –xij) +
+ b · (BijL –xij) + c · (BjG –xij)
update position of particle Xi: Xi = Xi + ε · Vi
Table 8 – Pseudocode for Ant Colony Optimization
Data: population size N, set of components C = {C1,
…, Cn}, evaporation rate evap.
Initialization: amount of pheromones for each
component PH = {PH1, … , PHn}; best solution Best
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
initialize current population, P = void.
create current population of virtual solutions P:
FOR i = 1 TO N DO
create feasible solution S.
update the best solution, Best ← void.
Add solution S to P: P ← P S
Apply evaporation:
FOR j = 1 TO n DO
PHj = PHj · (1 – evap)
Update pheromones for each component:
FOR i = 1 TO N DO
FOR j = 1 TO n DO
if component Ci is part of solution Pj,
then update pheromones for this
component: PHj = PHj + Fitness(Pj)
number of ants will follow the same path. For each ant, a
taboo list may be defined to memorize its path.
The ants move between components Ci and Cj with
probability Pij, defined based on the pheromone density
between components, the visibility between the two
components and two weighting factors. After each ant
completes its path, the pheromone density for every
component is updated based on the fitness functions.
The pseudocode of ACO is presented in Table 8.
4.9 Honey Bee Colony Optimization
The Honey Bee Colony Optimization (HBCO)
algorithm was first proposed in [24]; it is a search
99 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Table 9 – Pseudocode for Honey Bee Optimization
Data: size of populations: - drones (ND), broods (NB)
and genetic pool (NP); initial queen‟s speed Smax;
crossover rate ηc and mutation rate ηm
Initialization: create initial population Drones with ND
individuals, and select the best drone as the Queen.
WHILE {stopping criterion not met}
create the genetic pool: use Drones popoulation
and select NP individuals using a Simulated
Annealing-type acceptance rule, based on the
queen‟s speed S, and gradually reduce S.
crossover: apply arithmetic crossover between
Queen and succesively selected drones from the
genetic pool, until a population of NB broods
(offsprongs) is created.
mutation: apply arithmetic mutation to randomly
selected broods (offsprings).
update the Queen: if any brood is better than the
Queen, update the Queen.
selection: use broods and, based on a selection
criterion, create the new population of Drones.
procedure that mimics the mating process in honey-bee
colonies, using selection, crossover and mutation.
A honey bee colony houses a queen-bee, drones and
workers. The queen-bee is specialized in egg laying;
drones are fathers of the colony and mate with the
queen-bee. During the mating flight the queen mates
with drones to form a genetic pool. After the genetic
pool was filled with chromosomes, genetic operators are
applied. During the crossover stage, drones are
randomly selected from the current population and mate
with the queen using a Simulated Annealing-type
acceptance rule based on the difference between the
fitness functions of the selected drone and the queen.
The final stage of the evolutionary process consists in
raising the broods generated during the second stage,
and creating a new generation of NB broods, based on
mutation operators. A new generation of ND drones is
created based on a specific selection criterion. The
pseudocode of HBCO algorithm is presented in Table 9.
5 Applications of (meta)heuristic
methods in power systems
Many optimization problems in Power Systems may be
approached using heuristic and metaheuristic techniques.
A brief description of most representative applications
of the (meta)heuristic methods in the field of power
system optimization is presented below.
5.1 Load assessment and profiling
The knowledge of load characteristics at system buses,
in general, and the estimation of peak loads in
distribution systems, in particular, is one of the top
requirements for taking high quality decisions for the
optimal operation and planning of a distribution system.
ISSN: 1792-5967
Paper [28] presents a new approach to this problem,
based on joint application of genetic programming (GP)
and symbolic regression (SR). GP is a special form of
GA that describes possible solutions using
chromosomes with a tree-like structure [16]. SR is a
special numerical technique used to identify those
analytical expressions, previously unknown, that best fit
some relations among observed data. The GP&SR
method was applied to a dataset comprising hourly load
profiles. The daily peak load was estimated using
different combinations of data. The optimal solution
found by the GP&SR estimates the daily peak load
using as input data other peak loads form days d-7, d-6
and d-1 and the number of the reference day in the year.
One of the most widely used techniques to represent
consumers is the Load Profiling (LP-ing) method, which
associates typical load profiles (TLPs) with simple
readings in the network [29, 30, 31]. Paper [32]
proposes a new LP-ing technique that uses a fuzzy
implementation of Self Organizing Maps (SOMs) as a
basic clustering approach, combined with a weighting
procedure to compute distances between metered load
profiles and TLPs around peak and valley load hours.
Then the growing SOM technique is applied to
determine the optimal architecture of the SOM, using a
control strategy based on the assessment of affinity
measures between metered LPs and TLPs.
Paper [33] presents a new approach to the LP-ing
problem based on the HBCO algorithm. The proposed
method can be easily implemented as a clustering
technique, with high robustness properties. The
application of HBCO algorithm is an original approach
to the LP-ing problem. A major advantage of the
proposed method is its capability to produce qualitative
classification results with fewer parameters that need
calibration than other alternative clustering approaches.
5.2 Network reconfiguration
The network reconfiguration problem arises usually in
distribution systems and aims at changing the network
topology by altering the position and status of
sectionalizing switches. Generally speaking, this is a
complex combinatorial problem, because in real systems
the number of candidate solutions is huge.
Paper [34] approaches the network reconfiguration
problem using the ACO algorithm. Candidate solutions
are represented by vectors consisting of the load
sections that must be opened to obtain a radial
configuration of the network, taking into account the
problem‟s constraints (no consumer is to be
disconnected and the thermal current and voltage drop
must meet the admissible limits).
A different approach, based on the PSO algorithm
was proposed in [35]. This time, a particle in the swarm
encodes two m-tuples of indices, where the value of
100 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
parameter m is equal to the sum of the number of source
nodes and the number of independent loops in the
system, minus one. The first m-tuple indicates the
feeders in the system where the loops should be opened,
and the second m-tuple shows the line sections on each
feeder where the switches must be turned off.
An interesting approach to network reconfiguration
problem is the one depicted in [36]. This approach is
based on a heuristic that replace the traditional approach
that computes network losses for every switching
configuration with a simple one based on the following
heuristic. Start with the standard radial configuration
and select the one switch p with the maximum voltage
difference across it. If this difference is large enough,
stop the search. Otherwise, choose the bus across switch
p with minimum voltage, and open the switch q adjacent
to this bus, while closing switch p. Move to the q+1
switch and repeat the above steps until losses begin to
increase. At that moment, stop the search and choose as
optimal solution the one with the open switch q.
5.3 Reactive power planning
Reactive power control can be achieved using several
approaches such as generator voltage control,
transformer tap control and fixed or controllable VAR
sources. At the distribution level, the most efficient
approach, as it produces other positive effects too, is the
Reactive Power Compensation (RPC) method through
power factor correction.
RPC was approached in [34] and [35] in parallel with
the distribution system reconfiguration, using the ACO
and the IA algorithms. The two algorithms were run to
produce the final solution of the RPC optimization
problem. Multiple runs of the PSO and IA algorithms
will lead eventually to the optimal solution.
A different approach was used in [37], where an
enhanced PSO (E-PSO) algorithm was proposed. For the
E-PSO algorithm, a particle changes its position based
not only on its best position so far and the global best
position, but also on other successful positions of itself
and other particles in the current population. Tests have
proved that a second order E-PSO model is enough to
guarantee a faster convergence.
In [38] the reactive power planning problem is
approached in a more complex way, considering the
simultaneous optimization of reactive generation of
generators, transformer tap positions and capacitor
banks. The authors uses a hybrid optimization method:
while the optimal settings for reactive generation of
generators and transformer tap positions are determined
using metaheuristics (GA, PSO and DE), the number of
capacitor banks in the system buses are established using
a heuristic approach based on an analysis of loss
sensitivity at the buses.
ISSN: 1792-5967
5.4 System security analysis
System equivalents are a good solution to simplify the
on-line analysis of present day wide-area power
systems. Paper [42] presents an original approach to the
problem of the REI equivalent design optimization
based on the sensitivity of the complex bus voltage to a
set of simulated contingencies. The optimal structure of
the REI equivalent is determined using a GA approach.
Basically, besides the standard and mixed REI
equivalents, with PQ or PV-type buses, the new
proposed model allows to define any structure of the
equivalent, with any number of virtual REI buses, which
group real buses from any category (PQ or PV-type).
In [39] the authors propose a feeder reconfiguration
approach to increase voltage stability limits for a
distribution system, based on a TS optimization
procedure. The quality of a candidate solution is
assessed based on a voltage stability index
recommended in [39].
FACTS (Flexible AC Transmission Systems)
optimization is approached in [41], where a hybrid
metaheuristic approach to the efficient allocation of
UPFC (Unified Power Flow Controller) for maximizing
transmission capability is presented. The model
proposed in [41] is applied in two steps. The first step
consists in determining the optimal location of UPFC
using TS algorithm, while the second step consists in
optimizing the outputs of the UPFC using a
evolutionary PSO approach.
5.5 State estimation
The most popular State Estimation (SE) model is based
on the Weighted Least Squares method, and uses
measurements for bus voltage, real and reactive power
flows or injections. Recent works, such as [42],
approached the problem of power system SE using a
parallel implementation of the PSO algorithm based on
PC cluster systems. The main advantages of parallel
processing consist in reducing computing time and
improving computation efficiency. The proposed PC
cluster configuration considers sub-populations that
evolve independently and change information only with
other predefined neighboring sub-populations.
Recently, GPS synchronized phasor measurement
data were proposed to be used as input data to the
traditional SE model [43]. Phasor measurement units
(PMUs) are placed at the buses of transmission
substations to measure voltage and current phasors.
From a financial standpoint, a hybrid solution which
uses both traditional and synchronized phasor
measurements is better in terms of costs. From this
standpoint paper [44] approaches the problem of
optimal PMUs placement as an optimization problem
which aims to expand an existing traditional
measurement configuration through the placement of
101 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
additional PMUs using a GA – based approach. The
algorithm aims to find the optimal placement of a given
set of PMUs at the buses of a power system with a
known conventional measurement configuration.
5.6 Distributed generation
Present day distribution systems are facing deep
changing that transforms traditional design for passive
operation into new concepts centered on distributed
generation (DG) and a more active role of end-users.
Two representative types of optimization problems for
DG applications will be briefly described forward.
An appropriate location of DG sources can determine
reduction in system losses, improvement of voltage
profiles or simplification of network protection
schemes. Thus, a multi-objective approach to the
optimal placement of DG, based on the HBCO
algorithm is presented in [45]. The fitness function used
by the HBCO algorithm is a combination of two
objective functions, which describe different features of
the system: system real power losses and a penalty
function associated with bus voltage and line
overloading violations for contingency analysis.
The problem of optimal design of multiple energy
hubs was approached in [46] for a trigeneration-energy
system using a GA-based approach. The hub uses as
primary energy electricity and natural gas or biomass,
and produces as outputs electricity, cooling and heating.
The mathematical model is based on a compound
objective function with two components: the primary
energy function and an error term equal to the difference
between the primary energy computed on two
independent ways (starting from the heating or cooling
output energy). The optimization process consists in
finding the optimal values for three conversion
coefficients that uniquely describe the hub energy flow.
6 Conclusion
During the last 20 years numerous (meta)heuristic
approaches have been devised and developed to solve
complex optimization problems. Their success is due
largely to their most important features, namely the need
of minimal additional knowledge on the optimization
problem and a highly numerical robustness of
algorithms. This paper provided basic knowledge of
most popular (meta)heuristic optimization techniques,
and how they are applied in common optimization
problems in power systems.
References:
[1] R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, 2-
nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
[2] G. Polya, How to Solve It., Princeton Univ.Pr, 1945.
ISSN: 1792-5967
[3] F. Box, A Heuristic technique for assigning
frequencies to mobile radio nets, IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology, 27, 57–74, 1978.
[4] K. Y. Lee and M.A. El-Sharkawi (editors), Modern
Heuristic Optimization Techniques with
Applications to Power Systems, IEEE Press Series
on Power Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[5] J. Pearl., Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies
for Computer Problem Solving, Add.-Wesley, 1984.
[6] S. J. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A
Modern Approach (3rd ed.), 2009.
[7] S. Koenig M. Likhachev, Y. Liu, et al., Incremental
heuristic search in AI, AI Magazine, 25 (2), 2004.
[8] R. Zhou, E. A. Hansen, Breadth-First Heuristic
Search, Proc. of the 14th International Conference
on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS-04,
Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, June 2004.
[9] R. Dechter, J. Pearl, Generalized Best-First Search
Strategies and the Optimality of A*. Journal of the
Assoc. for Comp.Machinery, 32, pp. 505-536, 1985.
[10] E. Burns, S. Lemons, R. Zhou,W. Ruml, Best-First
Heuristic Search for Multi-Core Machines, Proc. of
the 21-st International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-09), Pasadena,
California, pp. 449-455, 2009.
[11] R. Zhou, E. A. Hansen, Beam-Stack Search:
Integrating Backtracking with Beam Search, Proc.
of the 15th International Conference on Automated
Planning and Scheduling, Monterey, June, 2005.
[12] C. Blum, A. Rolli, Metaheuristics in Combinatorial
Optimization: Overview and Conceptual Compari-
son, ACM Computing Surveys,35(3),268–308,2003.
[13] I. Rechenberg, Cybernetic Solution Path of an
Experimental Problem, Royal Aircraft
Establishment Library Translation, 1965.
[14] L. Fogel, A.J. Owens, MJ. Walsh, Artificial Intelli-
gence through Simulat.ed Evolution, Wiley 1966.
[15] J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial
Systems, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1975.
[16] J. Koza, Genetic programming, MIT Press; 1992.
[17] S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, M. P. Vecchi,
Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science, 220
(4598): 671–680, 1983.
[18] F. Glover, Future Paths for Integer Programming
and Links to Artificial Intelligence, Computers and
Operations Research 13 (5): 533–549, 1986.
[19] J. D. Farmer, N. Packard, A. Perelson, The immune
system, adaptation and machine learning, Physica D
22: 187–204, 1986.
[20] P. Moscato, On Evolution, Search, Optimization,
Genetic Algorithms and Martial Arts : Towards
Memetic Algorithms, Techn. Report C3P 826, 1989.
[21] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm
Optimization, Proc. of IEEE Internal Conference on
Neural Networks,pp.1942–1948, 1995.
102 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7
 SELECTED TOPICS in MATHEMATICAL METHODS and COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
[22] M. Dorigo, Optimization, Learning and Natural
Algorithms (Phd Thesis). Polit.di Milano, 1992.
[23] R. Storm, K. Price, Differential evolution - a simple
and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces, Journal of Global Optimization
11: 341–359, 1997.
[24] S. Nakrani, S. Tovey, On honey bees and dynamic
server allocation in Internet hosting centers,
Adaptive Behaviour 12, 2004.
[25] K.A. De Jong, Genetic Algorithms: A 10 Year
Perspective; Proceedings of the 1st Internal Conf.
on GAs and Their Appl, pp. 169-177, 1985.
[26] D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search,
Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-
Wesley,Reading, MA, 1989.
[27] R. Dawkins et al., The Selfish Gene, Oxford Univ.
Press, 1989.
[28] M. Gavrilas, C.V. Sfintes, O. Ivanov, Comparison
of Neural and Evolutionary Approaches to Peak
Load Estimation in Distribution Systems, Proc. of
the Internal Conf. on "Computer as a Tool", EU-
ROCON 2005,Belgrade,Nov.2005,pp.1461-1464 .
[29] G. Chicco, R. Napoli, and F. Piglione,
Comparisons among clustering techniques for
electricity customer classification, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 933–940, May 2006.
[30] M. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov, G. Gavrilas, Load
Profiling with Fuzzy Self-Organizing, Proc. of the
9th Symposium on Neural Network Applications in
Electrical Engineering NEUREL 2008, Belgrade,
Sept. 2008, CD-ROM, ISBN: 978-1-4244-2903-S.
[31] G. Chicco, M. S. Ilie, Support Vector Cluste-
ring of Electrical Load Pattern Data ,IEEE Trans.
Power Syst.,Vol.24,No.3,2009,pp.1619-1628.
[32.GG] M. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov, Load Profiling by Self
Organization with Affinity Control Strategy, Rev.
Roum. Sci. Techn. – Électrotechn. et Énerg., 53, 4,
Bucarest, 2008, pp. 413–421.
[33] M. Gavrilas, G. Gavrilas, C.V. Sfintes,
Application of Honey Bee Mating Optimization
Algorithm to Load Profile Clustering, Proc. of the
IEEE International Conference on Computational
Intelligence for Measurement Systems and
Applications, Taranto, Italy, Sept. 2010.
[34] O. Ivanov, M. Gavrilas, C.V. Sfintes, Loss
Reduction in Distribution Systems using Ant
Colony Algorithms, Proc. of the 2-nd Reg. Conf. &
Exhib.on Electricity Distribution, Serbia, Oct. 2006.
[35] M. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov, Optimization in
Distribution Systems Using Particle Swarm
ISSN: 1792-5967
View publication stats
Optimization and Immune Algorithm, Proc. of the
First International Symposium on Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Galati, Romania, 2006.
[36] R. Srinivasa, S.V.L. Narasimham, A New Heuristic
Approach for Optimal Network Reconfiguration in
Distribution Systems, Internnal Journal of Appl.
Science, Engin. and Technol., 5:1 2009, pp.15-21.
[37] M. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov, C.V. Sfintes, Enhanced
Particle Swarm Optimization Method for Power
Loss Reduction in Distribution Systems, Proc. of
19th Internal CIRED, Vienna, May 2007.
[38] B. Bhattacharyya, S.K. Goswami, Combined
Heuristic and Evolutionary approach for Reactive
Power Planning Problem, Journal of Electrical
Systems, Volume 3, Issue 4, 2007, pp. 203-212.
[39] M.A.N. Guimaraies, J.E.C. Lorenzeti, C.A. Castro,
Reconfiguration of distribution systems for voltage
stability margin -enhancement using tabu search,
Proc.. of Intematlonal Conference on Power
System Technology - POWERCON 2004,
Singapore, Nov. 2004, pp. 1556-1561.
[40] M. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov, G. Gavrilas, A New Static
Network Reduction Technique Based on REI
Equivalents and Genetic Optimization, Proc. of the
8th WSEAS Intnal Conference on Power Systems
(PS '08),Santander,Spain, Sept. 2008, pp. 106–111.
[41] H. Mori, Y. Maeda, A Hybrid Method of EPSO and
TS for FACTS Optimal Allocation in Power
Systems, Proc. of the 2006 IEEE Internal Conf. on
Systems,Man, and Cybernetics,2006,pp.1831-1836.
[42] H.M. Jeong, H.S. Lee, J.H. Park, Application of
Parallel Particle Swarm Optimization on Power
System State Estimation, Proc. of IEEE Transm. &
Distrib. Asia Conference, 2009.
[43] A. Abur, A. G. Expósito, Power System State
Estimation—Theory and Implementations, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., 2004., ISBN: 0-8247-5570-7.
[44] M. Gavrilas, I. Rusu, G. Gavrilas, O. Ivanov,
Synchronized Phasor Measurements for State
Estimation, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn. – Électrotechn.
et Énerg., Vol. 54, No. 4, 2009, pp. 335-344.
[45] S. Anantasate, C. Chokpanyasuwan, W.
Pattaraprakor and P. Bhasaputra, Multi-objectives
Optimal Placement of DG Using Bee Colony
Optimization, Proc. of the 3rd GMSARN Internal
Conference, Nov.2008, China.
[46] E. Hopulele, M. Gavrilas, C. Afanasov, Optimal
Design of a Hybrid Trigeneration System with
Stirling Engine, Proc. of the 6th Internal Conf. on
Electrical and Power Engineering, Iasi, Oct. 2010.
103 ISBN: 978-960-474-238-7