Presented By:-

Nishant Chaturvedi

CONTENTS

Introduction
Literature Review
Objective
Methodology
Problem Formulation
Implementation
Results & Discussion
Conclusion
Future Scope of Work
References

 In power generation our main aim is to generate the required

amount of power with minimum cost.

Economic load dispatch means that the generators real and

reactive power are allowed to vary within certain limits, so as
to meet a particular load demand with minimum fuel cost.
This allocation of load are based on some constraints
Equality Constrain
Inequality Constrain

Literature Survey
Pluhacek michal et al (2013) a new approach for chaos drive

particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is suggested. Two

different chaotic maps are alternatively used as pseudorandom
number generator and switch over during the run of chaos driven
PSO algorithm.
Rani C. et al (2013) A chotic local search operator is introduced
in the proposed algorithm to avoid premature convergence.
Park Jong-Bae et al (2010) An improved PSO framework
employing chaotic sequence combined with conventional
linearly decreasing inertia weights and adopting a cross over
operation scheme to increase both exploration and exploitation
capability of the PSO.

Literature Survey
Jaini et al (2010) A particle swarm optimization algorithm

(PSO) with one of the accelerating coefficient being constant are

propose to solve the economic power dispatch problem.
Tao Zhang et al (2009) A modified tent-map-based chotic PSO
(TCPSO) to solve the ELD problem. More specifically, a novel
dynamic inertia weight factor was incorporated with the
modified hybrid tent-map-based chaotic PSO which balance the
global and local search better.

Literature Survey
Chaturvedi K. T. Et al (2008) A novel self organizing
hierarchical particle swarm optimization ( SOH_PSO) for the
non- convex economic dispatch to handle the problem of
premature convergence.
Araujo Ernesto et al (2008) Particle swarm optimization
approach intertwined with lozi map chaotic sequence to obtain
Takagi- Sugeno (TS) fuzzy model for representing dynaic
behavior are proposed.
Leandro dos Santos Coelho et al (2008) The use of combining
of particle swarm optimization, Gaussian probability distribution
function and chaotic sequence.

Literature Survey
Park Jong- Bae et al (2006) A novel and efficient method for

solving the economic dispatch problem with valve point effect

by integrating the particle swarm optimization with the chaotic
sequences.
Chuanwen J. et al (2005) Suggested a self adaptive chaotic
particle swarm optimization is used to solve the ELD problem in
deregulated environment. Logistic map chaotic sequence to
generate the random number R1, R2 and self- adaptive inertia
weight scale in original PSO to improve the performance.

OBJECTIVE
The main objective of study is to minimize generation cost using partical

swarn optimization (PSO) algorithm for the economic load dispatch (ELD)
problem.
The purpose of the economic load dispatch (ELD) problem is to control the

committed generators output such that the total fuel cost is minimized,
while satisfying the power demand and other physical and operational
constraints.
To integrate PSO method with Chaotic map for solving ELD problem

having generated unit with non smooth cost function and multi-fuel.
To maximize the power generation by proposing a PSO algorithm to

obtain the optimum scheduling of generator

METHODOLOGY
Particle swarm optimization
Proposed by james kennedy & russell
eberhart in 1995
Inspired by social behavior of birds
and fishes
Combines self-experience with social
experience

Population-based optimization

Concept of PSO
Uses a number of particles that constitute a swarm moving
around in the search space looking for the best solution.
Each particle in search space adjusts its flying according to its
own flying experience as well as the flying experience of other
particles.
PSO ALGORITHM
Basic algorithm of PSO
1. Initialize the swarm form the solution space
2. Evaluate the fitness of each particle
3. Update individual and global bests
4. Update velocity and position of each particle
5. Go to step 2, and repeat until termination condition

 velocity update equation

Vi

k 1

Vi c1rand1 Pbesti X i c2 rand 2 Gbest k xi

k

Where,
Vi

c1,c2
rand1,rand2
Xik
Pbestik
Gbestk

= Velocity of individual i at iteration k

= Inertia weight factor
= Acceleration Coefficient
= Random number between 0 and 1
= Position of individual i at iteration k
= Best position of individual a until iteration k
= Best position of the group until iteration k

Position update equation

Xi

k 1

X i Vi
k

k 1

(2)

(1)

 FLOW CHART OF BASIC PSO

Start

Define the parameter of PSO Constants

C1, C2 Particle (P), and Dimension (D)
Initialize particles with random
Position (P) and Velocity vector (V)
Calculate fitness for each Population
Update the Population local best
Update best of local bests as gbest

Upadate Particle velocity using

eq. (1) and Postion using eq. (2)

No

If iteration
Completed

Yes

Stop

CHOTIC THEORY
Chaos: a state of disorder and irregularity.
It describes many physical phenomena with complex behavior

by simple laws.
Dynamical systems: systems that develop in time in a nontrivial manner.
Deterministic chaos: irregular motion generated by nonlinear
dynamical systems whose laws determine the time evolution of a
state of the system from a knowledge of its previous history.
i) Logistic Map

f k . f k 1.1 f k 1

Where is a control parameter and has a real value

between [0, 4]. Despite the apparent simplicity of the
equation, the solution shows a rich variety of behaviours.
The behaviour of the system represented by above equation
is greatly changed with the change of . The value of
determines whether f stabilizes at a constant size, oscillates
between bounded sequences of sizes, or react chaotically in
an unpredictable pattern. fk-1, is a number between Zero and
One.

ii) Lozi map

Lozi introduced in a short note, a two-dimensional map the
equations and attractors of which resemble those of the
celebrated henon map. Simply, a quadratic term in the
latter is replaced with a piecewise linear contribution in the
former. This allows one to rigorously prove the chaotic
character of some attractors. The lozi map is depicted in fig.
The map equations are given below. The parameters used in
this work are: a=1.7 and b=0.5.

X n 1 1 a | X n | bYn
Yn 1 X n

Where a and b are the real non-vanishing parameters. Inside

the region where the orbits remain bounded, the lozi map
may present both regular and chaotic behaviours.
The new proposed algorithm utilizes lozi map for the first
part of the optimization process. When pre-defined number
of iterations is achieved, the lozi map is switched over to
logistic map.

Problem formulation
An objective function expresses the main aim of the model
which is either to be minimized or maximized. It is expressed in
term of design variable and other problem parameter. In present
work the goal is to minimize the generation cost of committed
generating unit i.e three, forty, and ten which are given below
N

FT Fi Pi
i 1

ai Pi bi Pi ci
2

Where,
FT: Total Generating Cost
Fi: Cost Function of ith Generating Unit
ai,bi,ci: Cost Function of Generator i
Pi: Output Power of Generator i
N: Number of Generator

Equality and inequality constraints

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

P P
i 1

load

Ploss

Where
Pload is the total system load. The total
transmission network loss, Ploss is a function of the unit
power outputs that can be represented using B coefficients
as follows:
n

Ploss Pi Bij Pj B0i Pi B00

i 1 j 1

i 1

Here, Ploss is the total line loss. However, the transmission

loss is not considered in this research work for simplicity
(i.e., Ploss = 0).
2) Minimum and maximum power limits: power output of
each generator should be within its minimum and maximum
limits. Corresponding inequality constraints for each
generator is.

Pi ,m in Pi Pi ,m ax
Where Pi,min
and Pi,max are the minimum and
maximum output of generator i, respectively.

Non-Smooth Cost Function with Valve-Point effects

The generating units with multi valve steam turbine exhibit a
greater variation in the fuel cost function. Since the valve point
result in the ripples, a cost function constraints higher order nonlinearity. Here the sinusoidal functions are thus added to the
quadratic cost function as follows:

Fi Pi ai bi Pi ci Pi | ei sin fi Pi ,min Pi |
2

Where ei and fi are the coefficients of generator i reflecting

valve-point effects.
Non-Smooth Cost function with Multi Point Fuel
Since the dispatching unit are practically supplied with multi
fuel sources, each unit should be representing with several
piecewise quadratic function reflecting the effect of fuel type
change. In general, a piecewise quadratic function is used to
represent the input output curve of a generator with multi fuel
and described as.

ai1 bi1 Pi ci1 Pi

if Pi min Pi Pi1

a b P c P 2 if Pi1 Pi Pi 2
i 2 i 2 i i 2 i .........
.........
FiPi
.........

2
ain bin Pi cin Pi if Pin 1 Pi Pi m ax

Where, ain,bin,cin are the cost coefficients of

generator i for the p-th power level.

IMPLEMENTATION
Pseudo Code for ELD
Input required power (Pd)
Initialize the coefficients a, b, c, e and f of all generators.
Select the optimization technique
Initialize the value of a_lozi = 1.7, and b_lozi = 0.5;
Provide the upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) constrains on generators

Initialize the PSO coefficients c1 = 2, c2 = 1, wmax = 0.9, wmin =0.1,

Configure the PSO running parameters population size (Psize)
= 100 and total iterations (itermax) = 50
Initialize the values of fk=0.63 and mu ( ) = 4 for logistic map
Initialize the initial position and velocity matrix to zero

For iter = 1:iter_max

For i = 1:pop_size
For j=1:nvars

If iter = = 1
Generate random number for initial positions (Pij) and velocities (Vij)
Check for upper and lower bond and modified accordingly
else
assign lastly calculated Pij and Vij
endif
Endfor
Endfor
Endfor

Now update the variables to satisfy the Pd constrain

while (sum(init_positions (i,:)~=Pd))

temp_Pij = Pd (sum(init_positions(i,:)) init_positions(i,j));

temp_vij = init_velocity (i,j);
end

w = w_max ((w_max w_min)/iter_max) * iter;

update the value of w
If (the technique is standard)
calculate w normally
else
if (the technique is previous)
calculate the next value from logistic map and use it to modify the w

fk = * fkpre * (1-fkpre);

wnew = w* fk ;
else (the technique is proposed)

if (iter is odd the)

calculate the next value from logistic map and use it to modify the w
fk = * fkpre * (1-fkpre);

wnew = w * fk ;
else
calculate the next value from lozi map and use it to modify the w
lozi_X = 1 a_lozi * abs (lozi_X_pre) + b_lozi * lozi _Y_pre;
wnew = w * lozi _ X;
end

for i = 1: pop_size
calculate the fitness values for all the population

x = init_positions (i, :);

fit_val(i) = obj_fun (x);
end

if P_val < G_val

G_val = P_val;
G_best = P_best;
check for the Pbest and compare it with previous gbest
end

init_velocity = w_new * init_velocity + c1 * rand * (Pbest init_positions)+c2

* rand * (G_best init_positions);

calculate the new velocity and positions for all the population and repeat

FLOW CHART

Start

Take Initialization
Parameters
Define Objective Function
Define Objective Constrains
Set Iter = 1
Generate Initial Population
Evaluate Objective Function

Use Logistic Map

If mod (Iter,2) ==1

Update Velocity and Positions

If iter == ter_max
Select Best Solution

End

Use Lozi Map

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Test System 1: This system comprises of 3 generating unit and the
input data of 3-generating system are given in Here, the total
demand for the system is set to 850MW.
The standard PSO
8700
8650
8600
8550

Cost

8500
8450
8400
8350
8300
8250
8200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 1: Operating Cost of 3 generating unit using standard PSO

50

400
350

Operating Power

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2
Generator Number

Figure 2: Operating Power of 3 generating

unit using standard PSO

Figure 3: Result window of 3 generating unit

using standard PSO

Table 1: Minimum cost of 3 generating unit using standard PSO

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO

8.2422e3

The PSO with single chaotic operation

8700
8650
8600
8550

Cost

8500
8450
8400
8350
8300
8250
8200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 4: Operating Cost of 3 generating unit using PSO 1

50

400
350

Operating Power

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2
Generator Number

Figure 5: Operating Power of 3 generating unit using PSO 1

Figure 6: Result window of 3 generating unit using PSO 1

Table 2: Minimum cost of 3 generating unit using PSO 1

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO 1

8.2416e3

The PSO with double (alternative) chaotic operation

8700
8650
8600
8550

Cost

8500
8450
8400
8350
8300
8250
8200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 7: Operating Cost of 3 generating unit using PSO 2

50

400
350

Operating Power

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2
Generator Number

Figure 8: Operating Power of 3 generating unit using PSO 2

Figure 9: Result window of 3 generating unit using s PSO 2

Table 3: Minimum cost of 3 generating unit using PSO 2

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO 2

8.2341e3

Minimum Operational Cost by all Three Techniques

8700
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

8650
8600
8550

Cost

8500
8450
8400
8350
8300
8250
8200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 10 : Comparison of cost minimization vs. iterations for PSO, PSO with chaotic map (PSO 1) and
Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.

400
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

350

Operating Power

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2
Generator Number

Figure 11: Comparison of optimum operational condition for 3 generator units for
PSO, PSO with chaotic map (PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.

Figure 12: Result window for comparison of 3 generating unit for PSO, PSO with chaotic map
(PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.
Table 4: Minimum Operational Cost for 3 generating unit by all Three Techniques
Technique

Minimum cost

PSO

8.2422e3

PSO 1

8.2416e3

PSO 2

8.2341e3

Test System 2: In this case the test system consists of 40generating units and the input data are given. The total
demand is set to 10500 MW.
The standard PSO

1.355

x 10

1.35
1.345

Cost

1.34
1.335
1.33
1.325
1.32
1.315

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 13: Operating Cost of 40 generating unit using standard PSO

50

600

500

Operating Power

400

300

200

100

10

15

20
25
30
Generator Number

35

40

Figure 14: Operating Power of 40 generating

unit using standard PSO

45

Figure 15: Result window of 40 generating unit using

standard PSO

Table 5: Minimum cost of 40 generating unit using standard PSO

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO

1.3195e5

The PSO with single chaotic operation

1.355

x 10

1.35
1.345
1.34

Cost

1.335
1.33
1.325
1.32
1.315
1.31
1.305

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

Figure 16: Operating Cost of 40 generating unit using PSO 1

45

50

600

500

Operating Power

400

300

200

100

10

15

20
25
30
Generator Number

35

40

Figure 17: Operating Power of 40 generating unit using PSO 1

45

Figure 18: Result window of 40 generating unit using PSO 1

Table 6: Minimum cost of 40 generating unit using PSO

1
Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO 1

1.3093e5

The PSO with double (alternative) chaotic operation

5

1.36

x 10

1.35
1.34

Cost

1.33
1.32
1.31
1.3
1.29
1.28
1.27

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 19: Operating Cost of 40 generating unit using PSO 2

50

Operating Power

600

500

400

300

200

100

10

15

20
25
30
Generator Number

35

40

45

Figure 20: Operating Power of 40 generating unit using PSO 2

Figure 21: Result window of 40 generating unit using PSO 2

Table 7: Minimum cost of 40 generating unit using PSO 2

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO 2

1.2717e5

Minimum Operational Cost by all Three Techniques

5

1.36

x 10

PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

1.35
1.34

Cost

1.33
1.32
1.31
1.3
1.29
1.28

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 22 : Comparison of cost minimization vs. iterations for PSO, PSO with chaotic map
(PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps

600
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

500

Operating Power

400

300

200

100

10

15

20
25
30
Generator Number

35

40

45

Figure 23: Comparison of optimum operational condition for 40 generator units for
PSO, PSO with chaotic map (PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.

Figure 24: Result window for comparison of 40 generating unit for PSO, PSO with chaotic map
(PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.
Table 8: Minimum Operational Cost for 40 generating unit by all Three Techniques
Technique
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

Minimum cost
1.3017e5
1.2932e5
1.2839e5

Test System 3: Multi-Fuels with Valve-Point Effect The test

system consists of 10-generating units considering multi-fuels
with valve-point effects. The total system demand is set to 2700
MW.
The standard PSO
1000

900

800

Cost

700

600

500

400

300

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 25: Operating Cost of 10 generating unit using standard PSO

500
450
400

Operating Power

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

5
6
7
8
Generator Number

10

Figure 26: Operating Power of 10 generating unit using

standard PSO

Figure 27: Result window of 10 generating unit using standard PSO

Table 9: Minimum cost of 10 generating unit using standard PSO

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO

318.4248

The PSO with single chaotic operation

1000
900
800

Cost

700
600
500
400
300
200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 28: Operating Cost of 10 generating unit using PSO 1

50

500
450
400

Operating Power

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

5
6
7
8
Generator Number

10

Figure 29: Operating Power of 10 generating unit using PSO 1

Figure 30: Result window of 10 generating unit using PSO 1

Table 10: Minimum cost of 10 generating unit using PSO 1

Technique

Minimum Cost

PSO 1

294.1963

The PSO with double (alternative) chaotic operation

1000
900
800

Cost

700
600
500
400
300
200

10

15

20

25
30
Iterations

35

40

Figure 31: Operating Cost of 10 generating unit using PSO 2

45

50

350

300

Operating Power

250

200

150

100

50

5
6
7
8
Generator Number

10

Figure 32: Operating Power of 10 generating unit using PSO 2

Figure 33: Result window of 10 generating unit using PSO 2

Table 11: Minimum cost of 10 generating unit using PSO 2

Technique
PSO 2

Minimum Cost
239.8838

Minimum Operational Cost by all Three Techniques

1000
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

900
800

Cost

700
600
500
400
300
200

10

15

20

25
Iterations

30

35

40

45

Figure 34: Comparison of cost minimization vs. iterations for PSO, PSO with chaotic map
(PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps

50

500
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

450
400

Operating Power

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

5
6
7
Generator Number

10

Figure 35: Comparison of optimum operational condition for 10 generator units for
PSO, PSO with chaotic map (PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.

Figure 36: Result window for comparison of 10 generating unit for

PSO, PSO with chaotic map (PSO 1) and Proposed PSO (PSO 2) with 2 chaotic maps.

Table 12: Minimum Operational Cost for 10 generating

unit by all Three Techniques
Technique
PSO
PSO 1
PSO 2

Minimum Cost
317.5348
302.1667
247.6402

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

This work presents an efficient approach for enhancing the
performance of standard PSO algorithm by alternative use of two
different chaotic maps for velocity updation and applied to the ELD
problem and tested for three different systems and objectives. The
simulation results shows the superiority of the proposed algorithm
over the previously proposed single chaotic map based PSO algorithm
and support the idea that switching over of chaotic pseudorandom
number generators in the PSO algorithm improves its performance
and the optimization process.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

The results for three different experiments are collected with different
settings and results compared with other methods which show that the
proposed algorithm improves the results by at least 10% for all three
cases. Although the result has improved we can further develop the
algorithm by utilizing multiple maps and optimizing the chaotic maps
parameters however these considerations are leaved for future
enhancements.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Kennedy, The Particle Swarm Optimization: Society Adaptation of Knowledge,
in Proc. 4th IEEE Cong. Evolutionary Computation, pp. 303-308, 1997.
[2] Michal Pluhacek, Roman Senkerik and Ivan Zelinka,Donald Davendra, Chaos PSO
Algorithm Driven Alternately by two Different Chaotic Map an Initial Study,
Congress on Evolutionary Computation Cancun Mexico, IEEE 2013, June 20-23, pp.
2444-2449.
[3]C. Rani, D. P. Kothari, and K. Busawon, Chaotic Self Adaptive Particle Swarm
Approach for Solving Economic Dispatch Problem with Valve-Point Effect.
International Conference on Power Energy and Control, ICPEC IEEE 2013, pp. 405410.

REFERENCES
[4] A. Jaini, I. Musirin, N. Aminudin, M. M. Othman and T. K. A Raman, Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) Technique in Economic Power Dispatch Problems The 4th
International Power Engineering and Optimization Conf., Shah Alam, Selangor, IEEE,
Malaysia: 23-24 June 2010.pp. 308-312
[5] Tao Zhang and Cai Jin-Ding, A new Chaotic PSO with Dynamic Inertia Weight for
Economic Dispatch Problem, IEEE, 2009. April 6-7, pp.1-6.
[6] K.T.Chaturvedi, Manjaree Pandit Self-Organizing Hierarchical Particle Swarm
Optimization for Nonconvex Economic Dispatch IEEE transactions on power
system,vol.23,august 2008.
[7] Ernesto Araujo and Leandro dos S. Coelho, Particle Swarm Approaches using
Lozi map Chaotic Sequences to Fuzzy Modelling of an Experimental Thermal-Vacuum
System, Applied Soft Computing, Vol.8 (2008), pp.1354-1364.

REFERENCES
[8] Leandro dos Santos Coelho and Chu-Sheng Lee, Solving Economic Load Dispatch
Problems in Power Systems using Chaotic and Gaussian Particle Swarm Optimization
Approaches, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 30 (2008), pp. 297-307.
[9]

Jong-Bae Park, Yun-Won Jeong, Hyun-Houng Kim and Joong-Rin Shin An

Improved Particle Swarm Optimization for Economic Dispatch with Valve-Point

Effect International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power, Vol. 1, no. 1
(November 2006).
[10] Jiang Chuanwen and Etorre Bompard, A Self-Adaptive Chaotic Particle Swarm
Algorithm for short time Hydroelectric System Scheduling in Deregulated
Environment,

Energy

Conservation

Vol.46,Issue.17,Oct.2005,pp.2689-2696.

and

Management,

REFERENCES
[11] Ke Meng, Hong Gang Wang, Zhao Yang Dong and Kit Po Wong, QuantumInspire Particle Swarm Optimization for Valve-Point Economic Load Dispatch,
Transactions on Power systems, IEEE, vol. 25, no. 1, February 2010.
[12] Jong-Bae Park, Yun-Won Jeong, Woo-Nam Lee, Joong-Rin Shin power
engineering society general meeting, 2006 IEEE.
[13] N.Sinha, R. Chakrabarti, and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Evolutionary programming
techniques for economic load dispatch, IEEE Trans. On Evolutionary Computations,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 83-94, Feb. 2003.
[14] C.L. Chiang, Improved genetic algorithm for power economic dispatch of units
with valve-point effects and multiple fuels. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20. no.4, pp.
1690-1699, Nov. 2005.

List of Publications
Nishant Chaturvedi, A. S. Walkey and N. P. Patidar, A Modified PSO Based
Solution Approach for Economic Load Dispatch Problem in Power System.
International Journal of scientific and engineering Research. ISSN : 2229-5518,
Vol. 5, Issue 4,pp. 292-300, April 2014.

Nishant Chaturvedi and A. S. Walkey, A Survey on Economic Load Dispatch

Problem using Particle Swarm Optimization technique International Journal of
emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. ISSN: 2250-2459, ISO 9001:

2008, Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 188-193, March 2014.

Nishant Chaturvedi and A. S. Walkey, A Noval Approach for Economic Load
Dispatch Problem Based on GA and PSO , International Journal of Engineering
Research and Application. ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 3 (Version 2), March
2014, pp. 24-31.