JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 198

A Novel Genetic Algorithm for Dynamic

Economic Dispatch of Power Generation
S.Dinu

Abstract—This paper presents a new and efficient method for solving the dynamic economic dispatch (DED) problem. The
main goal of this problem consists in finding the optimal combination of power outputs over a certain period of time while
satisfying all system equality and inequality constraints. The proposed framework is based on a new Genetic Algorithm with
meiosis-specific features that provides efficient global and local search characteristics. The feasibility and the validity of the
proposed approach are evaluated through numerical simulation considering a five-generator system and the results are
compared with the solutions obtained from the literature. The simulation results reveal the superiority of the proposed technique
in solving the DED problem.

Index Terms—Dynamic Economic Dispatch (DED), Genetic Algorithm, total generation cost, constrained optimization.

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION
In power system operation, the expected load must be
predicted following daily, weekly and seasonal cycles and
consequently load increase or decrease in each generating
unit is required. To achieve this, optimum schedules of
the generation units must be determined. Due to the
complexity of the planning process, the scheduling prob-
lem can be decomposed into different time horizons:
- Short-term scheduling: with a planning period of 1 day
to 1 week and a time increment of one hour;
- Medium term scheduling: when the planning horizon is
up to one year;
- Long-term scheduling: with a time horizon of 1-3 year.
Short-term generation scheduling consists of determin-
ing startup (which and when generating units should be
committed) and the generation levels for each of the
committed unit over a period of one day to one week.
This centralized resource scheduling problem involves in
fact two distinct tasks: the unit commitment problem and
the dispatch strategy.
The unit commitment (UC) decision determines which
of the available units will be turned on in each time pe-
riod, taking into account a wide variety of parameters
and technological aspects, while satisfying constraints
involved in the operation of the unit (start-up and shut
down costs, minimal operation point, etc.).
Economic Dispatch (ED) is one of the most important
functions of the energy management systems. The main
goal of ED of electric power generation consists in finding
the optimal combination of power outputs while satisfy-
ing all system equality and inequality constraints. Al-
though the basic objective is straightforward, the problem
is extended in many ways when valve-point loading ef-
fects, prohibited operating zones, fuel switching, active or
reactive load, ramp limits of the generators and other
practical limitations are taken into consideration.
The traditional ED problem is a static optimization
problem which attempts to minimize the cost of supply-
ing power subject to constraints on static behavior of the
generating units. Static economic dispatch is suitable for
only one period time-interval, while for multi-time inter-
val it will be difficult to meet the demand.
Dynamic economic dispatch (DED) problem is an ex-
tension of the static economic dispatch problem in which
the ramp rate limits of the generators are taken into con-
sideration. Adjusting the power output of generators in
order to balance the load variations can minimize system
losses at all time and it is a fundamental function in pow-
er system operation.
In the DED problem one usually divides the dispatch
horizon into a number of small time intervals over which
the load is assumed to be constant and the system is con-
sidered to be in temporal steady-state. Therefore, the
number of decision variables will be the number of gene-
rating units multiplied by the number of time intervals.
Thus, for N units and T time intervals results a complex
optimization problem of size N*T. Its dynamic nature
(large variation of load demand) and large dimensionality
makes this problem a large-scale dynamic optimization
problem, difficult to solve with conventional methods.
2 THE DYNAMIC ECONOMIC DISPATCH:
PROBLEM FORMULATION
Input-output characteristics of power generation units
are the most important initial data for solving the prob-
lem of optimal planning and operation of power plants.
The widely used input-output characteristic of the ith ge-
nerating unit is a quadratic function, as in [1]:

———————————————— HT(PGi)=aiPGi2+biPGi+ci.........Btu/h (1)

 S. Dinu is with the Constanta Maritime University, Romania
where the suffix i stands for the unit number.
HT is the heat input, PGi is the net output power and ai
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 199

, bi, and ci are the coefficients of the input - output charac- n n

teristic. PLoss =  P t
Gi Bij PGjt (10)
The fuel cost characteristics (FCC) is calculated by mul- i 1 j 1
tiplying the fuel input with the corresponding fuel cost
(K= constant) expressed in an arbitrary monetary unit where Bij = loss (or B-coefficients).
(UM): Further constraints can be added depending on the study
requirements: the use of multiple fuel types, prohibited
FCC(PGi) =K* HT(PGi) (2) operating zones, etc.

Thus, the FCC for the unit i can be written in the form
of a quadratic polynomial similar to the heat input equa-
3 EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION IN DED
tion: PROBLEM
FCC(PGi)=aiPGi2+biPGi+ci..........UM/h (3) Evolutionary computation comprises a set of tech-
niques (genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolu-
A common situation is that in which the generating tionary programming and evolutionary strategies)
units have multiple valves that are used to control the inspired by the evolutionary processes which can be
power output of the units. Valve point effects are usually observed in nature: reproduction, mutation,
modeled by adding a sinusoid component to the basic recombination, natural selection and survival of the
quadratic fuel-cost characteristics: fittest. Unlike conventional optimization methods, an
evolutionary algorithm operates on a population apply-
FCC(PGi)=aiPGi2+biPGi+ci+|disin(ei(PGimin-PGi))| (4) ing, over the generations, the principles of natural selec-
tion and “survival of the fittest” to produce better solu-
where ei and fi are the constants for the valve point load- tion. So it uses in the search process an entire population
ing effect of unit i and PGimin is the minimum limit of the – possible solutions to the problem - and not just one
generating output of the ith unit. If there are N generators point in the search space. The algorithm performs specific
committed to the system and T intervals in the scheduled operations within a process of reproduction generated by
period, then the DED problem can therefore be stated as: specific operators that are metaphorically linked with
their biological correspondents: mutation, crossover, in-
T N version [3]. The qualities of each individual are evaluated
Minimize F=  FCC ( P t
Gi ) (5) by means of special evaluation function (fitness function).
t 1 i 1 The new population (new solutions) selected on the basis
of fitness function, which replaces the previous genera-
the total generation cost subject to given constraints: tion, bound for optimal and provides the best solutions
for the given issue (Fig. 1):
t
1
,
.
.
.
,
T

N
(i) P
i 1
t
Gi  PDt  PLoss
t
,  (6)

equality constraint: the system generation at time t equals

the total system load at time t plus system losses at time t.

(ii) PGimin ≤ PGit ≤ PGimax , i=1,...,N (7)

Fig. 1. The basic cycle in a evolutionary algorithm
where PGimin and PGimax are the minimum and maximum
limits of the generating output of the ith unit. In this paper, we propose an idea of using a Genetic
Algorithm (GA) with meiosis-specific features: duplica-
(iii) -DRi ≤ PGit - PGit-1 ≤ URi (8) tion and recombination with real valued representation
scheme for solution. GAs do not work on the real genera-
i=1,…,N ; t=1,…,T tor outputs, but on string encodings of them.
where URi and DRi are the ramp-up and ramp-down
limits of the ith unit. 3.1 Implementation and settings
Then the generating capacity constraints (7) are mod- A population of constant size PS consisting of arrays of
ified as: decision variable vectors is given by:

max(PGimin, PGit-1-DRi)≤ PGit ≤min(PGimax, PGit-1+URi) (9) Pkgen =[( PG11,..., PGn1),...,( PG1T,..., PGnT)] (11)

i=1,…,N ; t=1,…,T k=1,…,PS ; gen=1,…,GMAX

Using the B-coefficient method, network losses are ex- where: PGit is the power output of the i-th generation unit
pressed using George’s formula [2]: at the time interval t;
PS is the population size;
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 200

GMAX is the maximum number of generations (first we set duction, thereby ensuring that chromosome number does
GMAX=1000). not double with each generation. Before meiosis, each
In the initial population the output of (N-1) units can chromosome is replicated, forming two sisters "chroma-
be chosen arbitrary within their respective generating tids" that remain linked together. The two sister chroma-
capacity constraints. The reference unit k (randomly se- tids forming each homolog are then separated during the
lected) is constrained by the system power equation bal- second meiotic division. The implemented crossover is
ance, as in [4]. Thus, the dependent generation power PGkt arithmetic crossover. The probability of crossover is pc, so
is computed from (6) as: that an average of pc x 100% chromosomes undergoes
crossover. Fertilization (putting together two gametes
N resulted from meiosis) is done by randomly combining
PGkt = PDt + PLosst - P t
Gi , t=1,...,T (12) gametes from the gene pool: two of the gametes from the
i 1 four that have been formed are then selected randomly to
ik
form two new offsprings. The scheme of the designed GA
for the DED problem is given below:
The total operating cost for each chromosome is com- begin
puted using (5). The reference unit limit constraint is ap- t:= 0;
plied using a penalty factor that is proportional to the initialize population P(0) randomly;
violation and is zero in case of no violation. evaluate P(0)
At first, PGimin and PGimax are redefined: while t ≤Gmax
//roulette wheel selection
PGimin(t)= max(PGimin, PGit-1 -DRi ) (13) for all member of population
PGimax(t)= min(PGimax , PGit-1 +URi) r:=random[0,1]; k:=0; partial_sum:=0
min( t )
PGimin = max PGi (14) repeat
t 1,T
k:=k+1;
PGimax = min PGimax(t ) , i=1,...,N partial_sum:=partial_sum +fitness(k);
t 1,T until(r< partial _ sum or new population is full)
Then, the reference unit constraint penalty is calcu-  fitness(k )
lated, as in [4]: k

select_individual:=k
(1-PGk/ PGkmin)Fmax, if PGk < PGkmin repeat
PT= (PGk/ PGkmax -1)Fmax, if PGk >PGkmax (15) //meiosis
0, else for all member of population
T N //replicate_ chromosome1
Where: Fmax   FCC ( PGimax ) chromatid1:=chromosome1;
t 1 i 1 chromatid2:=chromatid1
//replicate_ chromosome2
One can observe that for the rest of the (N-1) units, the chromatid3:=chromosome2;
constraint (9) is automatically satisfied. The resulted chromatid4 :=chromatid3
augmented cost function for each individual is: //forming gamete1, gamete2
// crossover(chromatid1, chromatid3)
FT = F+PT (16) r:=random(0,1)
gamete1:=r*chromatid1+(1-r)*chromatid3
Because GA is designed for the solution of a minimiza- gamete2:= (1-r)*chromatid1+r*chromatid3
tion problem, the fitness function is calculated as the in- //forming gamete3, gamete4
verse of the function FT : //crossover(chromatid2, chromatid4)
r:=random(0,1)
fitness = 1/ FT (17) gamete3:=r*chromatid2+(1-r)*chromatid4
gamete4:= (1-r)*chromatid2+r*chromatid4
Once the individuals of current population are eva- //fertilization
luated according to their fitness, the individuals that will generate from gametes by randomly selection:
be the parents of the next generation are selected accord- offspring1 ; offspring2
ing to the desired selection scheme. This study uses the //non-uniform mutation
proportional (roulette wheel) selection. Next, the selected i:=random{1,2,…,N}; randi:=random[0,1]
individuals are paired off randomly to give rise to new if (pmut > randi)
offsprings. The reproduction of the individuals in this offspring1[i] offspring1mut[i]
study is inspired by the organic mechanism of a meiotic offspring2[i] offspring2mut[i]
cell division. In this context, the term "meiosis" refers to endif
the process whereby a nucleus divides by two divisions repeat
(meiosis I and meiosis II) into four gametes. Meiosis evaluate P(t+1)
halves the number of chromosomes before sexual repro- repeat; end.
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 201

The next genetic operator, mutation, is a mechanism TABLE 2

for extending the search on the new areas of search space. LOAD DEMAND FOR 24 HOURS
Mutation modifies the genotype, and thus the phenotype,
Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load Hour Load
by random altering of bit’s values inside chromosome (h) (MW) (h) (MW) (h) (MW) (h) (MW)
with given probability. 1 410 7 626 13 704 19 654
Beside the non-uniform mutation operator [5], we pro- 2 435 8 654 14 690 20 704
pose a new mutation operator defined as follows: 3 475 9 690 15 654 21 680
4 530 10 704 16 580 22 605
5 558 11 720 17 558 23 527
If Pkgen = [( PG11 ,..., PGn
1 T T
),...,( PG1 ,..., PGn )] and PGit is se-
6 608 12 740 18 608 24 463
lected at random for mutation, the resultant PGit(mut) is
PGimax  PGimin min TABLE 3
max( PGit  f ( gen)  , PGi ) ifr<0,5 B-COEFFICIENTS
2
PGimax  PGimin max 0.000049 0.000014 0.000015 0.000015 0.000020
min( PGi  f ( gen) 
t
, PGi ) if r>0,5 (18) 0.000014 0.000045 0.000016 0.000020 0.000018
2 0.000015 0.000016 0.000039 0.000010 0.000012
PGit, otherwise. 0.000015 0.000020 0.000010 0.000040 0.000014
0.000020 0.000018 0.000012 0.000014 0.000035
gen 
(1 )
where f(gen)= 1  r
Gmax
(19)
The best generation over the scheduled period is given
in Table 4. It was obtained for the GA parameters set at
r is a randomly generated number in interval (0,1); the values:
gen is the current generation; - size of population PS: 50
τ is a system parameter determining the degree of depen- - crossover rate pc=0.78
dency on the iteration number. In this study we set τ=3. - total number of generations GMAX=500
As can be seen from (19), the amplitude of the changes GA parameters were selected following parameter
decreases as one approach the maximum number of gen- sensitivity analysis. From the results, one observes that
erations. Thus, this mutation operator performs global the system generation satisfies the system load plus the
search during the initial generations and local search in system losses in each interval.
the later generations. Moreover, the local searching ability
of the algorithm is improved, as well as the algorithm’s TABLE4
efficiency. For both mutation operators we have set the BEST GENERATION OVER THE PERIOD
mutation rate at 0.05. Hour P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 PLoss
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
3.2 Application study 1 18,84 98,29 31,25 116,12 150,21 4,71
The effectiveness of the proposed approach is tested on 2 21,93 102,68 42,28 111,09 162,15 5,13
a DED problem reported by [6] for a five-generator sys- 3 26,18 105,12 65,19 113,21 170,50 5,20
tem. 4 31,45 105,79 83,11 115,19 199,70 5,24
5 36,84 103,18 84,29 114,20 225,39 5,90
Unit data, generation limits and load pattern of units
6 29,15 106,20 82,15 129,78 267,67 6,95
system are taken from the ones above. Also B-coefficient 7 28,10 104,09 89,20 150,15 261,89 7,43
matrix is given. The scheduling horizon is chosen as one 8 26,03 107,18 85,30 160,29 283,85 8,65
day with 24 intervals of one hour each. 9 27,15 106,11 120,90 163,15 282,67 9,98
10 35,98 108,24 120,79 161,29 287,81 10,11
TABLE1 11 40,16 111,07 129,25 155,43 296,37 12,28
GENERATING UNIT DATA 12 37,09 109,12 138,98 168,15 299,63 12,97
13 33,15 110,29 120,15 179,98 271,46 11,03
Unit1 Unit2 Unit3 Unit4 Unit5 14 36,29 112,03 118,75 165,23 268,61 10,91
ai($/h) 25 60 100 120 40 15 35,79 112,09 116,98 144,15 255,06 10,07
16 30,12 107,03 114,05 129,80 207,53 8,53
bi($/MWh) 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.8
17 27,98 108,12 113,90 118,65 197,47 8,12
ci($/MW2h) 0.0080 0.0030 0.0012 0.0010 0.0015 18 26,12 107,02 113,65 127,98 242,01 8,78
di($/h) 100 140 160 180 200 19 28,75 107,85 125,13 129,11 273,24 10,08
20 29,11 106,95 148,25 138,15 292,50 10,96
ei(1/MW) 0.042 0.040 0.038 0.037 0.035 21 33,68 104,19 143,15 120,13 288,60 9,75
PGimin(MW) 10 20 30 40 50 22 30,97 102,98 128,79 111,18 239,11 8,03
23 26,84 99,45 107,48 103,12 196,21 6,10
PGimax(MW) 75 125 175 250 300 24 23,15 98,79 82,15 100,87 163,16 5,12
UR(MW/h) 30 30 40 50 50
DR(MW/h) 30 30 40 50 50 The results of the proposed method are compared with
that of the Simulated Annealing method (SA) [7] and
Maclaurin Series Based Lagrangian Method (MSL) [6].
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 202

The best total cost obtained by the proposed algorithm

is 46930 compared to 47356 of the SA method and 49216
of the MSL method.
Further more, it can be observed from Table 1 that Unit
1 and Unit 2 are the most ramp-rate limited units.
By comparing their schedules obtained with the cur-
rent solution and that of [6] one notices that the proposed
method is going to flat these schedules (Fig. 2).

45

40

35

30
P(MW)

25

20
Fig. 3. Total fuel cost for different population size
15

10

5
Maintaining the obtained population of 50, the cros-
Schedule from reference schedule from the proposed approach
0 sover rate was changed from 0.5 to 0.9 with an increment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
hour (h)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
of 0.01 and 50 independent tests were performed for each
case. The obtained results are shown in Fig. 4. The best
Unit 1 schedulng
140 option for crossover rate is located very close to 0.8. After
120 this value, the performance decreases with the increase in
100 crossover rate.
P(MW)

80

60

40

20
schedule from reference schedule from the proposed approach
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour (h)

Unit 2 scheduling

Fig. 2. Compared schedules for Unit 1 and Unit 2

The sensitivity analysis was performed on GA parame-

ters to determine their influence on the algorithm’s per-
Fig. 4. Total fuel cost for different crossover rate
formance.
First, analysis was performed for 10 values of popula-
For further analysis regarding the total number of gen-
tion size (PS) in the range [10, 100] with an increment of
erations, a population size of 50 and a crossover probabil-
10, while the value for crossover was set at 0.7, in accor-
ity of 0.78 were chosen. Fig. 5 shows the the minimum of
dance with previous results in GA applications.
total fuel cost in each generation: cost decreases propor-
The results obtained after performing 50 independent tionally as generation advances. From the results one can
runs for each case (Fig. 3) indicate that the performance of observe an intense decrease of cost in early generations,
the algorithm was improved when the population size where individuals are far from the optimum.
increased from 10 to 50, but no significant improvements The algorithm finds an optimal solution within less
were observed when the population was further in- than 1000 generations that leads to less computational
creased. time for the solution process.
A large number of studies which explore the interac- Another test was carried out regarding the new pro-
tion among different GA parameters showed that in gen- posed mutation operator. The results obtained previously
eral GAs will work well with high crossover & low muta- with non-uniform mutation were compared in terms of
tion probability [8], [9], [10], [11]. solution quality with those obtained for this mutation
operator.
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
Fig. 5. Total fuel cost in each generation
The results of this comparison are summarized on Fig-
ures 6-7 and in Table 5. Fig. 6 shows the best objective
value (minimum fuel cost) obtained by the 100 runs per-
formed when using the proposed algorithm for non-
uniform mutation operator, while Fig. 7 shows the best
objective value obtained by the 100 runs performed when
using the new proposed mutation operator.
Fig. 6. Best objective values for the non-uniform muta-
tion operator
Fig. 7. Best objective values for the new proposed mu-
tation operator
Table 5 summarizes the minimum cost, maximum cost,
average cost and standard deviation obtained after 100
203
independent runs in both cases. The difference between
max and min objective values expresses the search range
of the algorithms. “St. Dev” denotes standard deviation,
which expresses the searching capacity of each algorithm.
As Table 5, the new mutation operator provides a smaller
mean value and a smaller standard deviation.
TABLE 5
PERFORMANCES OF THE PROPOSED ALGORITHM
Results obtained with non-uniform mutation operator
100 runs Average St. Dev
[46926.04 , 46934.12] 46930.49 2.025
Results obtained with the new proposed mutation operator
100 runs Average St. Dev
[46927.11 , 46932.74] 46929.83 1.517
4 CONCLUSION
This paper presents a new and efficient method for
solving the dynamic economic dispatch problem. The
specific algorithm used in this study has proven to be a
valuable help in dealing with this problem. Through
its proposed enhancements (meiosis-specific features
and the new mutation operator), the procedure de-
monstrates superior global and local search characte-
ristics, even with a small population size.
A numerical simulation including comparative stu-
dies has been presented to demonstrate the perfor-
mance and applicability of the proposed method. The
simulation results reveal the superiority of the pro-
posed technique in solving the DED problem. There-
fore this approach could also be extended to other op-
timization and control problems of power systems.
In addition, sensitivity analysis has been carried out to
study the effects of the various genetic parameters on
the convergence behavior of the proposed approach.
This analyze of the influence of the changing para-
meters may have further consequences on designing
other evolutionary algorithms for this problem.
REFERENCES
[1] D.P. Kothari and J.S.Dhillon, Power System Optimization. Pren-
tice Hall, pp. 444-445, 2004
[2] E.E. George, “Intrasystem transmission lased” AIEE Trans.
(Electrical Engineering), vol. 62, pp. 153-158, 1943
[3] D.B. Fogel, Evolutionary computation: Toward a new philosophy of
machine intelligence. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2000.
[4] N. Amjady and H. Nasiri-Rad, “Economic dispatch using an
efficient real-coded genetic algorithm”, IET Generation, Trans-
mission, Distribution, vol. 3(3), pp. 266–278, 2009
[5] Z. Michalewicz, T. Logan and S. Swaminathan, “Evolutionary
operators for continuous convex parameter space” Proceedings
of Third Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, pp.84-
97, 1994
[6] S. Hemamalini and S.P. Simon, “Dynamic Economic Dispatch
with Valve-Point Effect Using Maclaurin Series Based Lagran-
gian Method” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol.
17, pp. 71-78, 2010
[7] B.K. Panigrahi, V.R. Pandi and S. Das, “Adaptive particle
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 204

swarm optimization approach for static and dynamic economic

load dispatch”, Energy conversion and management, vol. 49, pp.
1407-1415, 2008
[8] K. Metaxiotis, Intelligent Information Systems and Knowledge
Management for Energy: Applications for Decision Support, Usage,
and Environmental Protection. IGI Global Publishing, pp. 135-139,
2009
[9] Y.L. Kwang and M.A. El-Sharkawi, Modern Heuristic Optimiza-
tion Techniques: Theory and Applications to Power Systems. IEEE
Press Series on Power Engineering, pp. 337-349, 2008
[10] K.P. Dahal, K.C. Tan and P.I. Cowling, Evolutionary Scheduling.
Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 317-330, 2007
[11] A. Pereira-Neto, C. Unsihuay and O.R. Saavedra, “Efficient
evolutionary strategy optimization procedure to solve the non-
convex economic dispatch problem with generator constraints”
IEE proc.- Gener. Transm. and Distrib. 152, (5), pp. 653-660, 2005