Optimal Transmission Expansion Planning

using Mean-Variance Mapping Optimization

Rolando M. Pringles, Member, IEEE, and Jos L. Rueda, Member, IEEE

systems. In practice, the use of heuristics has allowed better

Abstract--The optimization problem in transmission system
expansion planning (TSEP) is a mixed-integer nonlinear
programming problem of combinatorial nature that leads to an
extremely large number of alternative solutions for medium and
large size electric power systems. Due to its complex
characteristics, heuristic optimization has become an effective
solver. In this paper, a novel heuristic optimization algorithm,
namely the Mean-Variance Mapping Optimization (MVMO), is
adapted to handle the TSEP. Additionally, a variant of MVMO
termed as collaborative MVMO (CMVMO) is introduced.
CMVMO exploits multicore technology of modern computers as
well as distributed computing to enhance the performance of the
former MVMO. Several tests were performed on three
benchmark systems with different mesh complexity in their
topologies in order to compare the performance of both, MVMO
and CMVMO, with other evolutionary algorithms. Simulation
results show that CMVMO constitutes a powerful algorithm and
should earn more attention.
Index Terms- Collaborative optimization, heuristic optimization,
Mean-Variance Mapping Optimization, transmission expansion
planning.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE key goal of transmission system planning expansion
(TSEP) is to define installation plans of new facilities (i.e.
quantity, type, location, and scheduled year) to meet the
forecasted demand at the lowest cost while satisfying
economical, environmental and reliability criteria.
Like most optimization problems in electrical power
system field, the TSEP has a complex, large-scale, nonlinear,
convex and integer-mixed nature [1]. Besides, the number of
solutions to be evaluated grows exponentially with the size of
the system (i.e. the problem is non-polynomial time with a
large number of local optimal solutions [2-3]).
The solution to the underlying optimization formulation of
power system planning, with emphasis on transmission system
expansion, has been widely tackled through analytical
mathematical models. Nevertheless, the applicability of such
tools has been hitherto rather confined to small-size power
This work was supported in part by CONICET, the Universidad Nacional
de San Juan and the University Duisburg-Essen.
R. M. Pringles is with Instituto de Energa Elctrica , Universidad
Nacional de San Juan, Argentina (e-mail: rpringles@iee.unsj.edu.ar,
http://www.iee-unsj.org/rrmg/)
J. L. Rueda is with the Department of Electrical Power Systems,
University Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany (e-mail: jose.rueda@uni-
duisburg-essen.de)
representation of system characteristics, constraints and
objectives of decision makers, even without losing optimality.
In recent years, heuristic optimization algorithms, such as
genetic algorithm (GA) [3, 4], particle swarm optimization
(PSO) [5-7], differential evolution (DE) [8, 9], evolutionary
programming (EP) [10], ant colony optimization (ACO) [11],
to name a few, have been applied in transmission expansion
planning. These techniques have shown effectiveness in
overcoming the disadvantages of classical algorithms.
Specially, PSO and DE have received great attention from
researchers due to their novelty and searching power features.
However, it does not mean that these techniques do not have
any limitations, since these methods may be easily trapped
into a local optimum when solving complex multimodal
problems. Furthermore, their searching performance depends
on appropriate parameter settings [6].
Mean-variance mapping optimization (MVMO), which was
firstly reported in [12], is a novel optimization algorithm. Its
basic conceptual framework shares some similarities to other
heuristic approaches. However, the most salient feature of
MVMO is that it uses a special mapping function applied for
mutating the offspring on the basis of the statistics of the n-
best population attained so far. Moreover, thanks to the well-
designed balance between search diversification and
intensification, MVMO exhibits a fast convergence
performance so that it can find the optimum solution quickly
with minimum risk of premature convergence. At of this
writing, MVMO has been successfully applied to solve
different power system optimization problems, such as the
solution of the optimal reactive power allocation problem [13,
14], the optimal dispatch of energy and reserve [15], the
development of optimal control strategies [16, 17], and the
identification of dynamic equivalents [18].
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows.
Section II presents the mathematical formulation of the DC
flow model implemented to value the transmission system
expansion. The MVMO algorithm is described in detail in
Section III. In section IV, a novel variant of MVMO, which
has been named collaborative MVMO (CMVMO), is outlined.
Numerical results are presented and discussed in Section V,
including a performance comparison between the former
MVMO, CMVMO and other heuristic optimization tools.
Finally, conclusions and future research direction are drawn in
section VI.

978-1-4673-2673-5/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE


II. POWER SYSTEM TRANSMISSION PLANNING
A. Planning issues
The problem TSEP in electric power systems consist in
defining a minimum cost expansion plan while accounting for
technical, economical and environmental constraints.
Moreover, transmission expansion is not only a matter of
strengthening an existing system, since it also may involve
significant changes in existing network topology or the
addition of new grid portions that will connect new nodes of
generation or load to the system, or the interconnection of an
isolated system.
TSEP can be classified as static or dynamic. In static
planning, an issue with which this paper deals, the planner
targets the optimal set of additional reinforcements for a given
year (i.e. time horizon) and an expected future situation.
On the other hand, dynamic planning is concerned with the
determination of the optimal investment sequence throughout
several stages in the planning period. Dynamic planning
problems are very complex and far-reaching, since they do not
only account for the number and location of new equipment,
but also the time to install. This results in a tremendous
number of variables and constraints to be considered which
also requires a huge computational effort to determine the
optimal plan.
Although there are several mathematical models to solve
the TSEP problem, this paper will implement the DC power
flow model. DC model is considered the most suitable for
long-term network planning, full AC model are only required
for short-term planning.
B. Mathematical formulation
As previously mentioned, this paper deals with static
expansion planning. Thus, given the actual system
configuration and operational planning policy, the goal is to
determine the optimal expansion plan. It is assumed that future
demand and indicative plans of generation are known
beforehand. Demand is represented by a single power stage.
The proposed problem has the above characteristics in
order to compare our results with those reported in other
studies using different heuristic optimization methods [1-3],
[19-21].
The TSEP is formulated as a nonconvex mixed-integer
nonlinear programming problem where the power system is
represented by a DC power flow model. It constitutes a high
dimensional and complex combinatorial problem due to the
huge amount of decision variables related to the expansion
alternatives to be evaluated.
The mathematical formulation to solve the TSEP presents
the following format:
min v = cij nij + ri (1)
ij i serves as the knowledge base for guiding the searching
2
subject to:
Sf + g + r = d
( )
fij - g ij n ij0 + n ij (qi - q j ) = 0 (2)
( 0
)
fij n + n ij fij
ij
0g g
0r d
0 n ij n ij
nij integer, and qij unbounded ,
where
cij : cost of new circuit added to branch i-j,
ij : circuit susceptance in branch i-j,
S : branch-node incidence matrix
: vector of voltage angle,
nij : number of new circuits added to branch i-j,
nij0 : number of existing circuits in branch i-j,
fij : power flow in branch i-j
fij : power flow limit in branch i-j,
f : vector of elements i-j,
g : vector of generation en each bus gi ,
d : vector of load in each bus di ,
r : vector of virtual generation to cover the deficit in
production ri ,
: penalty parameter associated with the load deficit
caused by the lack of transmission capacity.
III. REVISITING MVMO
The theoretical background of MVMO and its application
to power system problems have been published in [12-18].
The flowchart of MVMO is given in Fig. 1. As every
population-based stochastic optimization technique, the
conceptual framework of MVMO starts with an initialization
stage (i.e. definition of the algorithms parameter settings and
generation of random samples for control variables from the
space of possible solutions). This is followed by an iterative
loop to perform fitness evaluation (i.e. in terms of fulfillment
of conditions), to update the solution database (i.e. inclusion
or exclusion of candidate solutions in the archive), to select
the global best solution (i.e. parent assignment), and to create
new candidate solutions (i.e. mutation by projection of the
selected variables onto the mapping function and crossover).
Nevertheless, its distinctive features can be summarized as
follows:
- The range of the search space for all optimization
variables is restricted to [0, 1].
- A small-size and dynamically updated solution archive
direction (i.e. adaptive memory). The n-best
individuals that MVMO has found so far are saved in
the archive and sorted in a descendant order of fitness.

- In contrast to other methods, where the term iteration
generally refers number of fitness evaluations, which is
proportional to the total number of
individuals/solutions in the population/swarm, MVMO
requires only one fitness evaluation per iteration
independently of the number of individuals saved in
the solution archive.
- A single parent-offspring pair concept is adopted.
- It possess a novel mapping function that is used for
mutating genes in the offspring based on the mean and
variance of the solution archives dynamic population.
Fig. 1. Overview of MVMO.
A. Initialization stage
In MVMO, there are few settings to be preliminarily
defined:
- Size of the solution archive.
- Number of problem variables (dimensions), m, to be
selected for mutation.
- Selection method (several alternative strategies are
described in [12, 13]).
- Shape scaling factor, fs .
- Initial smoothing factor, di .
- Smoothing factor variation range d0 .
The real min/max bounds of every variable have to be
normalized to 0 and 1, since the search space for all
optimization variables within MVMO is [0, 1]. Thus, the k
problem variables to be optimized have to be initialized within
these limits. This can be done by randomly sampling from the
space of possible solutions. Reference values for choosing the
archive size, fs , di , and d0 will be given in the subsequent
subsections.
3
B. Fitness evaluation and termination criteria
Every candidate solution is evaluated in light of its fitness
measure. This involves calculation of the objective function
and analysis of constraint fulfillment, which is performed
using the actual values in the problem space (i.e. de-
normalization is carried out in every single iteration). If the
problem is unconstrained, the fitness corresponds with the
objective function. But, for problems involving constraints the
feasibility of the solution should be checked and the fitness
value is modified through a constraint-handling technique
(e.g. penalization). MVMO has the versatility to allow the
annexation of any of these techniques. Generally, it is
considered that an individual is better if the fitness is smaller.
Similarly to other heuristic optimization algorithms, the
MVMO search process can be terminated either based on a
completion of a specified number of iterations, the attainment
of a fitness threshold, or no improvement in the fitness over
the last iterations.
C. Solution archive
Although MVMO adopts a single parent-offspring pair
concept, it accounts for the performance (in terms of mean and
variance) of the n best individuals stored in the solution
archive. The archive size is fixed for the entire process. An
archive size (which is fixed for the entire process) of 2-5 is
usually sufficient. A larger archive size will result in a rather
conservative searching with orientation on the saved best
populations. The archive is filled up progressively over
iterations in a descending order of the fitness, so that the first
ranked individual is always the best found so far. Once the
archive is filled up, an update is performed only if the fitness
of the new individual is better than those in the archive. As
fitness improves over iterations, the population members keep
changing.
Mean and shape variables are calculated after every update
of the archive for each variable xi using (3) and (4),
respectively.
1 n
xi = xi ( j)
n j=1
(3)
si = ln(vi ) fs (4)
with the variance
1 n
vi = ( xi ( j) xi )2
n j=1
(5)
At the beginning, xi corresponds with the initialized value
of xi, and vi is set to one.
D. Offspring generation
At every iteration, the individual with the best fitness so far
in the archive (first position) is used to generate a new
descendant (i.e. assigned parent). Besides, m of k dimensions
of the optimization problem are selected for mutation
operation via mapping function while the remaining
dimensions inherit the corresponding values from the parent.
Alternative selection methods are described in [16, 17].

The new value of each selected dimension xi is given by
xi = hx + (1 h1 + h0 ) x h0 *
i
where x*i is a variable varied randomly with unity distribution
and the term h refers to transformation mapping function,
which is defined as
h( x, s1 , s2 , x) = x (1 e xs1 ) + (1 xi ) e (1 x )s2
hx, h1 and h0 are the outputs of the mapping function, based on
different inputs given by
hx = h( x = xi* ), h0 = h( x = 0), h1 = h( x = 1)
Both input and output of the mapping function cover the
range [0, 1]. Note that the shape of the mapping function is
determined by the mean x and the shape factors s1 and s2 .
Recalling to (4), the factor fs can be used to change the shape
of the function. A small value (e.g. between 0.5 and 1.0)
allows the slope of the mapping curve to increase and thus
enable better exploration, whereas values above 1.0 will result
in a flat curve and thus lead to improved exploitation. Thus, it
is recommended to start the search process with a smaller fs
and then increase it as the optimization progresses [18].
Furthermore, the shapes factors s1 and s2 of the variable xi are
assigned using the following procedure:
si1 = si2 = si
if si > 0 then
if si > di
di = di d
else
di = di /d
end if
if rand() 0.5 then
si1 = si ; si2 = di
else
si1 = di ; si2 = si
end if
end if
The initial values of di are set for all variables at the
beginning of the optimization. Values around 1-5 ensure good
initial performance. At every iteration, each di is scaled
by d , which could take any value within 0 and 0.8.
IV. COLLABORATIVE VARIANT OF MVMO (CMVMO)
In order to improve the computational effectiveness of
MVMO and to fully exploit the computing potential available
in modern personal computers a collaborative MVMO
approach is presented. This version of MVMO is called
collaborative because each search process shares information
with other search processes from criteria established by the
programmer. The flowchart of CMVMO is given in Fig. 2.
4
The basic operation principle of this MVMO variant is to
(6) distribute the optimization process between different
processing cores that modern computers have.
This variant could be viewed as a set of particles
performing parallel search of the optimum through classic
MVMO, and under certain circumstances, CMVMO allows
interchanging information held by every particle or processing
(7) cores (i.e. partial best fitness, best individual and solution
archive). To avoid that the search in each particle is biased by
other particles, communication among them is arranged
randomly.
(8)
Once the information is shared, the values of the solution
archive of each MVMO process are updated. After
exchanging the information, it is necessary to recalculate the
values of each solution file to return to each individual
MVMO process. Thus, the optimization continues until
reaching the termination criteria, in this case the criterion is a
specified number of iterations.
The CMVMO algorithm takes advantage of the full
potential of modern computers. The goal is to increase the
search success rate by performing several interrelated and
simultaneous search processes instead of only one as in the
case of MVMO.
A. Initialization stage
In CMVMO is necessary to define some additional settings
to the MVMO:
- Number of process or particles,
- Number of times that the processes are communicated
or collaborated with each other,
- Communication factor, fC
The number of processes or particle can be determined
according to the number of computing cores that modern
(9) computers have. The algorithm will assign to each core one
MVMO process. In case of having a computer cluster, the
number of processes can be increased according to the total
number of cores available in the cluster. The frequency of
communication between processes can be deterministically
fixed. In this paper, the total number of iterations to be
evaluated was divided into the number of times that the
processes are communicated. This criterion of communication
could also be adaptive so that early communication is low, and
then increase the frequency of exchange of information or
vice versa. The communication factor enables through a
stochastic draw, the communication among MVMO processes.
B. Communication among processes
Communication between processes allows the best solution
(e.g. fitness and individuals) found until that moment by one
process to be transferred to other search processes.
In order to ensure some independence in the individual
search for the optimum and to avoid premature convergence to
local optimum, the communication between processes is done
stochastic.

Fig. 2. Structure of CMVMO.
At every meeting point, a random number (with uniform
distribution between [0-1]), is assigned to each MVMO
process. The processes, whose draw satisfies the condition of
communication, share information of their individuals and
select the overall best partial fitness and the corresponding
configuration of optimization variables. Other processes
maintain its parameters and continue the search for optimum.
Condition of communication:
If Crand,i < f C shares information
If Crand,i f C does not share information
Fig.3. Communication topology
5
Experimental results have suggested that a communication
factor fC = 0.40 leads in many cases to better results than fC =
1 where the communication is every time. Hence, it is
believed that restraining the free flow of information about the
partial best allows more local search by each particle and
avoids premature convergence.
Finally, the communication factor may have an adaptive
behavior, in this case would accelerate or relax according to
the approach used the degree of communication between the
process of optimization. In the future it would be interesting to
study this behavior.
V. TEST SYSTEMS AND RESULTS
In this work, three widely used benchmark power systems
are employed to test the feasibility of MVMO for solving the
TSEP: a) Garver 6-bus, b) IEEE 24-bus, and c) Southern
Brazilian 46-bus. These systems have different types and
levels of complexity. For interested readers, full systems data
can be found in [19-20].
Both MVMO and CMVMO algorithms were implemented
in MATLAB, running in an Intel i7, eight cores, 3.4 GHz,
hardware platform. The system modeling and DC power flow
calculation are performed using an open source tool called
MATPOWER [22]. To apply the routine of CMVMO a
program was developed using Parallel Computing ToolboxTM
and then ran on MATLAB Distributed Computing Server.
This section provides numerical results that demonstrate
the ability of MVMO and CMVMO algorithms to solve the
TSEP problem. The tests were performed without allowing
generation rescheduling.
a) Garvers 6-bus system
This system has 6 buses and 15 candidate path for
additional branches, with a total system demand of 760 MW.
This system was originally implemented in [15], and has since
been one of the most popular test systems in planning
transmission expansion. The maximum of lines allowed per
right-of-way are four.
The MVMO and CMVMO variant successfully found the
optimal known value for this system, US $ 200 000, without
generation rescheduling. The following circuits were added in
this solution: n2-6=4, n4-6=2 and n3-5=1. The optimum
expansion of Garvers system can be seen in Fig. 4. This
topology corresponds exactly with that shown in [20-22].
b) IEEE 24-bus system
The second system corresponds to a medium-size test
network. The system consists of 24 buses, 41 rights of way,
and 8550 MW of total system demand. The maximum allowed
number of circuits per right-of-way is four. Data about this
system was obtained from [17].
The solution reached by the algorithm matches the optimal
transmission expansion plans presented in [17] and [19], with
a cost of US$ 218 000 000, and the following circuits were
added: n6-10=1, n7-8=2, n10-12=1, n14-16=1, n16-17=1,
n20-23=1.
 6

convergence than MVMO. This is attributed to the enhanced

overall search via 8 simultaneous particles (which also share
information), which seek individually the optimal expansion
of the transmission system.
1000
Process 1

Transmission Plan (millon US$)

Process 2
800 Process 3
Process 4
600 Process 5

400

200

Fig. 4. Garver System layout: Optimal plan without generation Rescheduling 0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Iterations
100 independent optimization repetitions of MVMO and
CMVMO were performed in order to assess the robustness of Fig. 5. Convergence process for the IEEE 26-bus system achieved by MVMO
with five processes
the algorithms searching performance. It is worth to point out
that MVMO used only one calculation core of the 1000
CMVMO - Mean Process
microprocessor Intel i7. The computation time to perform
Transmission Plan (millon US$)

CMVMO - Best Process

10000 iterations was 63 s. In this case, the success rate of 800 MVMO
MVMO is around 65%. The optimal expansion of the system
is obtained, on average, after 355 iterations.
600
By contrast, the CMVMO used all calculation-cores, each
one performing an individual search. The communication
400
factor was set to 0.40, since this value led the best results.
Moreover, the number of communication times between
particles was set to 10, i.e. the best partial solution is shared 200
every 1000 iterations. The total time required for 10000
iterations was 125 s. 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Given the i7-Intel microprocessor architecture, when the
Iterations
computing power of the 8 cores is required, the operating
Fig. 6. CMVMO vs. MVMO convergence process for the IEEE 26-bus system
frequency of the microprocessor decreases as compared to the
case when a single core is utilized. This involves higher c) Southeast Brazil System 46-bus
calculation time. But unlike to MVMO, CMVMO has
This is a realistic system that represents the southern part of
performed a total of 80000 evaluations, which resulted in a
the Brazilian interconnected system. It has 46 nodes and 79
significantly increased success rate. Thus, the success rate of
rights of way, where it is possible to add new circuits. The
CMVMO is 98%. Table 1 summarizes the results regarding
total system demand is 6800MW. The maximum number of
robustness of both optimization algorithms.
lines allowed per right-of-way is five in this case. Additional
Table 1 Performance of MVMO and CMVMO: IEEE 24-bus system data from this system can be founded in [2]. Fig. 7 depicts the
MVMO CMVMO initial configuration of the system, which possesses a high
Max iterations 10000 10000
level of complexity due to the large number of buses and
Cores 1 8
Time of calculus (seg) 65 125 possible connections. The search of the optimum expansion
Test times 100 100 plan was conducted for the case where the generation and
Success rate (%) 63 98 demand were fixed and the option to redispatch is not
Average iterations 3455 1792 considered.
Std. deviation iterations 1470 733
The optimal solution obtained for this transmission system
was US $154 420 000, and matches results obtained in
In Fig. 5, the convergence behavior of CMVMO, performed
previous works using other approaches [2-3], [20-21]. The
with five particles, is illustrated. Besides, a convergence
progress comparison between the best search process and the circuits added were: n20-21=1, n42-43=2, n31-32=1, n28-
average value of search processes of CMVMO versus the best 30=1, n26-29=3, n29-30=2, n24-25=2, n19-25=1, n46-6=1,
result obtained through MVMO is shown in Fig. 6. Note that n6-5=2.
CMVMO exhibits a higher success rate as well as a faster
 7

Again, the robustness of MVMO and CMVMO was problem. The most salient feature of MVMO resides in the
investigated by performing 100 independent optimization unique transformation used for mutating genes in the offspring
trials per algorithm. Results are summarized in Table 2, where based on the mean variance of a dynamically stored and
it can be noticed that CMVMO has a higher success rate than updated population.
the classical MVMO. As in the previous example, the To make optimal use of modern computational resources, a
superiority of CMVMO is due to the multiple and collaborative variant of MVMO was implemented and
simultaneous interrelated search processes. presented in this paper. Basically, this variant, termed as
CMVMO, exploits multicore technology of modern computers
Table 2 Performance of MVMO and CMVMO to 46-bus System
as well as distributed computing to arrive at an enhanced
MVMO CMVMO
Max iterations 10000 10000 search performance. Hence, CMVMO performs several
Cores 1 8 simultaneous searches, which exchange information through
Time of calculus (seg) 94 240 simple predefined communication rules so that unbiased and
Test times 100 100 adverse implications are avoided.
Success rate (%) 57 100 Three test systems of different size and complexity were
Average iterations 6567 6092 employed for testing purposed. Remarkably, it was found out
Std. deviation iterations 852 852
that both, MVMO and CMVMO, performed successfully
when comparing the obtained results with those from
literature and provide reliable optimization results as well.
Furthermore, unlike MVMO, CMVMO exhibited a higher
success rate due to the enhanced exploration and exploitation
search features.
CMVMO constitutes then a sophisticated optimization tool
which could be used to solve other complex power system
optimization problems.

Fig. 7. Initial topology of 46 bus network
VI. CONCLUSIONS
MVMO is a novel heuristic algorithm that has recently
shown great promises in dealing real-world complex
optimization problems. Besides its powerful search capability,
the algorithm is also easy to be implemented. In this paper, a
new application of MVMO to power systems is presented,
more precisely, to solve transmission system expansion
VII. REFERENCES
[1] E .L. Da Silva, H. A. Gil and J. M. Areiza, Transmission
Network Expansion Planning Under an Improved Genetic
Algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15(3),
pp. 1168-1175, Aug. 2000.
[2] R. Romero, R. A. Gallego, A. Monticelli, Transmission
System Expansion Planning By Simulated Annealing, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 11(1), pp. 364-369, Feb.
1996.
[3] R. A..Gallego, A. Monticelli, R. Romero, Transmission
System Expansion Planning by an Extended Genetic
Algorithm, IEEE Proceeding Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol. 145(3), pp. 329-335, May 1998.
[4] Maghouli, P.; Hosseini, S.H.; Buygi, M.O.; Shahidehpour, M.;
, "A Multi-Objective Framework for Transmission Expansion
Planning in Deregulated Environments," Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on , vol.24, no.2, pp.1051-1061, May 2009.
[5] Ping Ren; Li-Qun Gao; Nan Li; Yang Li; Zhi-Ling Lin; ,
"Transmission network optimal planning using the particle
swarm optimization method," Machine Learning and
Cybernetics, 2005. Proceedings of 2005 International
Conference on, vol. 7, no., pp.4006-4011, 18-21 Aug. 2005.
[6] V. Miranda, Evolutionary Algorithms with Particle Swarm
Movements, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference
on Intelligent Systems Application to Power Systems, pp 6-21,
6-10 Nov. 2005.
[7] Torres, S.P.; Castro, C.A.; Pringles, R.M.; Guaman, W.; ,
"Comparison of particle swarm based meta-heuristics for the
electric transmission network expansion planning problem,"
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2011 IEEE , vol.,
no., pp.1-7, 24-29 July 2011.
[8] J. Brest, S. Greiner, B. Boskovic, M. Mernik, and V. umer,
Self-Adapting Control Parameters in Differential Evolution: A
Comparative Study on Numerical Benchmark Problems, IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 10, no. 6, pp
646-657 Dec. 2006.
 8

[9] Sum-Im, T.; Taylor, G.A.; Irving, M.R.; Song, Y.H.; , VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
"Differential evolution algorithm for static and multistage
Rolando M. Pringles (M08) was born in
transmission expansion planning," Generation, Transmission &
1977. He received the Electrical Engineer
Distribution, IET , vol.3, no.4, pp.365-384, April 2009
[10] Ceciliano Meza, J. L.; Yildirim, M. B.; Masud, A. S. M. , A degree and the Ph.D. degree in Electrical
multiobjective evolutionary programming algorithm and its Engineering from the Universidad Nacional de
applications to power generation expansion planning, IEEE San Juan, San Juan, Argentina, in 2003 and
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: 2011, respectively. Currently, he is a research
Systems and Humans, vol 39, no.5, pp.1086-1096, 2009 fellow at the Instituto de Energa Elctrica of
[11] Leite Da Silva, A. M.; Rezende, L. S.; Da Fonseca Manso, L. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. His
A.; & De Resende;, Reliability worth applied to transmission research interests are power system expansion,
expansion planning based on ant colony system, International methodologies for economical evaluation, power investment under
Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 32, uncertainty, reliability and risk management.
no.10,pp. 1077-1084, 2010
[12] I. Erlich, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, and W. Nakawiro, A Jos L. Rueda (M07) was born in 1980. He
mean-variance optimization algorithm, in Proc. 2010 IEEE received the Electrical Engineer diploma from
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp.1-6, Barcelona, the Escuela Politcnica Nacional, Quito,
Spain, July 2010. Ecuador, in 2004, and the Ph.D. degree in
[13] I. Erlich, W. Nakawiro, and M. Martinez, Optimal Dispatch of electrical engineering from the Universidad
Reactive Sources in Wind Farms," in Proc. 2011 IEEE PES Nacional de San Juan, San Juan, Argentina, in
General Meeting, pp. 1-7, Detroit, USA, July 2011.
2009. From September 2003 till February
[14] W. Nakawiro, I. Erlich, and J.L. Rueda, A novel optimization
2005, he worked in Ecuador, in the fields of
algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch: A comparative
industrial control systems and electrical
study, in Proc. 4th International Conference on Electric
Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power distribution networks operation and planning. Currently, he is a
Technologies, Weihai, Shandong, China, July 2011. research associate at the Institute of Electrical Power Systems,
[15] M. S. Chamba, and O. A, Despacho ptimo de energa y University of Duisburg-Essen. His current research interests include
reserva en mercados competitivos empleando algoritmos meta- power system stability and control, system identification, power
heursticos," in Proc. 2012 IEEE Argencon, Crdoba, system planning, probabilistic and artificial intelligence methods,
Argentina, June 2012. smart grids, heuristic optimization, FACTS devices and wind power.
[16] J.L. Rueda, J.C. Cepeda, and I. Erlich, "Estimation of Location
and Coordinated Tuning of PSS based on Mean-Variance
Mapping Optimization," in Proc. 2012 IEEE PES General
Meeting, San Diego, USA, July 2012.
[17] P. Chakravarty and G.K.Venayagamoorthy, "Development of
optimal controllers for a DFIG based wind farm in a smart grid
under variable wind speed conditions," in Proc. 2011 IEEE
International Electric Machines & Drives Conference, pp. 723-
728, Niagara Falls, Canada, May 2011.
[18] J.C. Cepeda, J.L. Rueda, and I. Erlich, "Identification of
Dynamic Equivalents based on Heuristic Optimization for
Smart Grid Applications" in Proc. 2012 IEEE world congress
on computational intelligence, Brisbane, Australia, June 2012.
[19] R. Romero, A. Monticelli, A. Garcia, and S. Haffner, Test
Systems and Mathematical Models for Transmission Network
Expansion Planning, IEEE Proceeding - Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 149, pp. 27-36, Jan. 2002.
[20] R. Romero, C. Rocha, J.R.S. Mantovani, I.G. Sanchez,
Constructive heuristic algorithm for the DC model in network
transmission expansion planning, IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm.
Distrib., Vol.152, No. 2, pp. 277-282, March 2005.
[21] S. Haffner, A. Monticelli, A. Garcia, J. Mantovani, and R.
Romero, Branch and Bound Algorithm for Transmission
System Expansion Planning Using a Transportition Model,
IEE Proc. Gener, Transm, & Distrib., vol 147(3), pp. 149-156,
2000.
[22] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Snchez, and R. J. Thomas,
"MATPOWER Steady-State Operations, Planning and Analysis
Tools for Power Systems Research and Education," Power
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12-19, Feb.
2011.