Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm
for Unit Commitment
Zwe-Lee Gaing
Abstract- This paper proposes integrating a discrete binary
particle swarm optimization (BPSO) method with the
Lambda-iteration method for solving unit commitment (UC)
problems. The UC problem is considered as two linked
optimization sub-problems: the unit-scheduled problem that can
be solved by the BPSO method for the minimization of the
transition cost, and the economic dispatch (ED) problem that can
be solved by the Lambda-iteration method for the minimization of
the production cost. The feasibility of the proposed method is
demonstrated for 10 and 26 unit systems, respectively, and the
test results are compared with those obtained by the GA method
in terms of solution quality and convergence characteristic. The
simulation results show that the proposed method is indeed
capable of obtaining higher quality solutions.
Keywords: unit commitment, particle swarm optimization,
genetic algorithm
I. INTRODUCTION
nit commitment (UC) is the problem of determining
U the optimal set of generating units that are in service
during a scheduling period, and for how long they are in
service. The committed units must meet the system
forecasted demand and spinning reserve requirement at
minimum operating cost, subject to a large set of operating
constraints. Hence, the UC problem is quite difficult due to
its inherent high-dimensional, non-convex, discrete and
non-linear nature. The UC problem can be considered as
two linked optimization problems, namely the
unit-scheduled problem, which is a combinatorial
optimization problem, and the economic dispatch (ED)
problem, which is a non-linear programming optimization
problem. The solution of the former must satisfy the
system capacity requirements, units generation limit, and
the constraints on start-up and shut-down of the scheduled
units during each planning period. The solution of the latter
must perform the optimal generation dispatch among the
operating units during each specific period of operation to
satisfy the system load demand and spinning reserve
capacity [l-5][16-171.
Many methods have been developed for solving the
UC problem. In addition to the classical optimization
methods such as dynamic programming (DP) and
Lagrangian relaxation (LR), artificial intelligence methods
such as the expert system and the neural network have also
been employed to search for optimal or sub-optimal
solutions of the UC problem [l-31. However, for a large
system with too many units and involving a great variety of
constraints, these methods require a huge effort to establish
inference rules. Therefore, enormous CPU computation
time and large memory space are needed [4-61.
-----_--____________------.----------------------
Zwe-Lee Gaing works as an associate professor of the Electrical
Engineering of Kao-Yuan Institute of Technology. Kaohsiung, Taiwan Lambda-iteration method for solving the UC problem [ 131.
82 1(e-mail: zl.3inL.~~ms3').hiiiet.nct).
0-7803-7989-6/03/$17.0002003 IEEE
In recent years, two global optimization techniques,
known as genetic algorithms (GA) and simulated annealing
(SA), both of which are forms of probabilistic heuristic
algorithm, have been successfully used to solve many
complex UC problems [4-71. The GA method with high
probability and parallel calculating property may obtain
several near-optimum solutions and is a more efficient than
the SA method. GAS have been adopted to solve UC
problems with promising results. In some GA applications,
many constraints including the unit generation limit, unit
rate limit, minimum up and down time limits, and the
start-up and shut-down unit cost were considered for the
practicability of the proposed method [7-81. Though the
GA methods have been employed successfully to solve
complex optimization problems, recent research has
identified some deficiencies in GA performance. This
degradation in efficiency is apparent in applications with
highly epistatic objective functions, i.e., where the
parameters being optimized are highly correlated (after
the crossover and mutation operated can not ensure that the
fitness of offspring is better because the chromosomes in
the population have similar structures and their average
fitness is high when the evolutionary process approaches
the end). Moreover, the premature convergence of GA
degrades its performance and reduces its search capability
[91n51.
In 1995, Kennedy and Eberhart presented a new
evolutionary computation algorithm, the real-coded
particle swarm optimization (PSO). This method was
developed through the simulation of a simplified social
system, and has been found to be robust in solving
continuous nonlinear optimization problems [ 10-131.
Generally, the PSO method can be used to solve many
problems of the same kind as GA methods, and it can
generate high-quality solutions with stable convergence
characteristic, requiring only a concise program code [ 111.
Due to the PSO method seems sensitive to the tuning of
some weights or parameters in this algorithm, however,
there are many researches still in progress for proving its
potential in solving complex power system problems.
Yoshida et al. have presented a PSO for reactive power and
voltage control (VVC) considering voltage security
assessment. The feasibility of their method compared with
the reactive tabu system (RTS) and enumeration methods
for practical power systems has shown promising results
[14]. Abido presented the application of a PSO technique
to search for optimal settings of power system stabilizer
(PSS) parameters [ 151.
This paper proposes integrating a discrete binary
particle swarm optimization (BPSO) method with the
418
In the proposed approach, the BPSO algorithm is used to P?"/"lax minimudmaximum generation limit of unit i,
solve the unit-scheduling problem, and the
Dij shut-down cost of unit i at timej, usually a fixed
Lambda-iteration method is used to solve the economic
dispatch problem. A matrix representation of the cost,
chromosome representing each scheduled unit's status T.oN'OFF ONIOFF period of unit i at timej,
'1
during all scheduling period is adopted. The calculation
processes of the BPSO algorithm involved in solving the MUT, / MDT, minimum upldown time of unit i,
UC problem are explained in detail. Sij start-up cost of unit i at time j, where

11. PROBLEM FORMULATION

The objective of unit commitment in a power system is
to minimize total generation cost, while observing a large
set of operating constraints. The total generation cost
includes the production cost of the scheduled combination
units and the transition cost. The transition cost is the sum
of the start-up cost and shut-down cost, which is the cost
associated with changing from one combination of
power-producing units to another combination. Problem
formulation of the unit commitment must consider the
system constraints and the generating unit constraints. It is
a complex mathematical optimization problem with both
integer and continuous variables. In order to make the
problem formulation a realistic representation, the UC
problem can be formulated as the following mixed
integer-programming problem.
Object Function
Si =ai+di(1-e , and oi,6i,zi are
start-up cost coefficients of unit i, (7)
Ci( p V ) fuel cost of unit i for generating power pi at timej,
where c i ( p i j ) = a +, b i p i + c i p ; , and ai,bi,ci
are
start-up cost coefficients of unit i. (8)
According to equation (l), when solving the UC
problem, it is first necessary to determine the start-up,
shut-down, and generation levels of all units over a
specified period, which is an integer programming problem
that can use the binary-coded evolutionary algorithm to
search for feasible solutions. In addition, the scheduled
units (combinations) must provide proper power for system
demand, subject to power balance, spinning reserve
requirement and individual unit constraints in the given
interval. Thus, this is a non-linear programming problem

I: 1
that can be solved by numerical methods.
minF= CC(c,(p,,))
*U,,+

................................................. .. 111. OVERVIEW OF PARTICLE S W A R M

ProductionCost OPTIMIZATION
3.1 Features of Particle Swarm Algorithm [9-121
Kennedy and Eberhart first introduced the PSO
method, which is an evolutionary computation technique.
Transition Cost This method is derived from the social-psychological
Subject to theory and has been found to be robust for solving
System constraints : problems featuring non-linearity and non-differentiability,
System power balance multiple optima, and high dimensionality through
adaptation. The features of the method are as follows
[ 121[ 141.
.
The method is developed from researches on swarm
Spinning reserve requirement
N such as fish schooling and bird flocking.
'
pi"" ) * uij PDj PRj It can be easily implemented, and has high-quality
i=l
solution with stable convergence characteristic.
Individual unit constraints : Instead of using evolutionary operators to manipulate
Generation limit the individual, as in other evolutionary computational
p y 5 p i j I p imax algorithms, each individual in PSO flies in the search space
with a velocity which is dynamically adjusted according to
Minimum upldown time its own flying experience and its companions' flying
>MUT (5) experience. Each individual is treated as a volume-less
particle in the d-dimensional search space.
q,? > MDT (6) Each particle keeps track of its coordinates in the
where problem space, which are associated with the best solution
N number of units, (fitness) it has achieved so far. This value is called pbest.
T scheduling period in hours, Another best value that is tracked by the global version of
system load demand at timej, the particle swarm optimizer is the overall best value, and
pDj
its location, obtained so far by any particle in the
pRj system spinning reserve required at time j , population. This location is called gbest.
U ..
11
ON( '1 ')/OFF( '0') status of unit i at timej, At each time step, the particle swarm optimization
concept consists of velocity changes of each particle

419
toward its pbest and gbest locations. Acceleration is
weighted by a random term, with separate random numbers
being generated for acceleration toward pbest and gbest
locations.
For example, the ith particle is represented as x,=(x,I,
xlZ,... , xd) in the d-dimensional space. The best previous
position of the ith particle is recorded and represented as
pbest,=(pbest,l,pbestl2, ... , pbeSt,d). The index of the best
particle among all the particles in the population is
represented by the gbestd. The rate of the position change
(velocity) for particle i is represented as v,=(v,I,viz, ... , v 3 .
The modified velocity and position of each individual
particle can be calculated using the current velocity and the
distance from pbeSt,d to gbestd, as shown in the following
formula:
v$k+l) = w .v,'dk' + c1 * rand()* (pbest,, - xl(dk))+
c 2 * Rand0 * (gbestd - x$' )
x(k+l)
Id
-
- x,d(k)
+ v,(;+"
(9)
(10)
where,
v$"' : velocity of individual i at iteration
Vdm'n $vpaJd-,
w : inertia weight factor,
c, : acceleration constant,
rand(), Rand(): uniform random number between 0 and 1,
XI,"): current position of individual i at iteration k,
pbest,:pbest of individual i,
gbest: gbest of the group.
In the above procedures the parameter V""
determines the resolution, or fitness, with which regions
between the present position and target position are
searched. If V"" is too high, particles may fly past the
good solutions. If V'- is too small, particles may not
explore sufficiently beyond local solutions. In previous
experience with PSO, Vmu*was often set at 10-20% of the
dynamic range of the variable on each dimension.
The constants cl and c2 represent the weighting of the
stochastic acceleration terms that pull each particle toward
pbest and gbest positions. Low values allow particles to
roam far from target regions before being tugged back. On
the other hand, high values result in abrupt movement
toward, or past, the target regions. Hence, the acceleration
constants cz and c2 were often set to be 2.0 according to
past experiences.
Suitable selection of inertia weight w in equation (11)
provides a balance between global and local exploration
and exploitation, and on average results in less iterations
required to find a sufficiently optimal solution. As
originally developed, w often decreases linearly from about
0.9 to 0.4 during a run. In general, the inertia weight w is
set according to the following equation [ 151:
w = Wmax - " ' m x - W m m iter (11)
iter,,,
where iter,, is the maximum iteration number
(generations) and iter is the current iteration number.
3.2 Discrete Binary Version of PSO [13]
The particle swarm works by adjusting trajectories
through manipulation of each coordinate of a particle.
However, many optimization problems are set in a space
featuring discrete, qualitative distinctions between
variables and between levels of variables. In the binary
version of the PSO, the trajectories are changes in the
probability that a coordinate will take on binary value (0 or
1). Therefore, the main difference between the original
PSO and the BPSO is equation( 12) replacing equation (10).
$(rand() < S(v:j+'))) then xj;") = 1;
else xjj+l) = 0 . (12)
where S( v) is a sigmoid limiting transformation function
( S( v ) = 1 / ( I + e-'
, and rand() is a quasi-random
))
number selected from a uniform distribution in lO.0, 1.03.
In the discrete version, V"' is retained, that is
Iv$+') I<V mm , which simply limits the ultimate
probability that bit xid will take on a binary value. A
k, smaller Vmr will allow a higher mutation rate.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED
IV.
METHOD
The UC problem can be considered as two linked
optimization sub-problems, namely is the unit-scheduled
problem, and the economic dispatch (ED) problem. This
paper proposes integrating a discrete binary particle swarm
optimization (BPSO) method with the Lambda-iteration
method to solve the UC problems. The BPSO algorithm is
used to solve the unit-scheduled problem for obtaining the
transition cost and the Lambda-iteration method is used to
solve the ED problem for obtaining the production cost.
When one generating units combination has the lowest
associated generation cost, it will be an optimal solution.
The UC objective function with the associated constraints
has been described in Section 11.
4.1 Representation of Individual String
Before using the BPSO algorithm to solve the
generating units combinatorial optimization problem, the
representation of a particle must be defined. A particle is
also called an individual. Hence, we defined each
generator's status (ON( 'l')/OFF('O')) as a gene, all
available generators' status at each hour make up a
sub-chromosome, and there are 24 sub-chromosomes in
one day comprising an individual. An individual would
display the generator commitment schedule in one day. For
example, if there are five generating units to supply the
power to meet the load demand in a system, the dimension
of an individual is 5x24. Figure (1) shows a matrix
representation of an individual xl in the population. When
the size of the population is L, the dimension of the
population is equal to 5x24xL. We can use the row values
of the matrix to judge whether each scheduled-unit satisfies
the MUTMDT constraints, and to solve the transition cost
during all scheduled period. We can use the column values
to solve the ED solution and the production cost.
420
 population
............................................................................................................................... ...: Unit-scheduledproblem
hour Objective:
Unit ,.dZ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I1 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24/ i Feasible combinations & Transition
1
2
3
4
5
0 0 0 L ) I 1 1 1 I 0 0 0 1 I I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 I 1 1 I 1 I l 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 0 0 I I 1 1 0 ,/.
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1- ..."
+ cost
Constraints:
Minimum up time (MUT).
Minimum down tune(MDT).
Method:
Using BPSO method searches
Individual xl feasible combinations and satisfies
the system consmints.

Power balance,

1 I I
Spinning reserve, Objective function
Generating units limits Min. (Production cost + Transition cost)
Method Subiect to
Using the Lambda-iteration solves the System constraints,
allocation of generation bum those Generating units limits.
scheduled units and satisfies the units'
constraints.

Figure (1) Binary representation of an individual q in the population for a UC problem solution

4.2 Evaluation Function where k is the iteration number.

The evaluation function is mainly used to provide a Step 6 If v:,:,;') > V m M, then v!,:,;') = V" .
measure of how the individual performed in the problem
domain. The best individual should have the lowest total If v!,:,;" < Vmin, then v!,:,;') = Vmin.
generation cost of objective function, and also satisfy Step 7 Modify the position of individual x, according to
system constraints of the UC problem. Therefore, in the
BPSO evolutionary algorithm, we define the evaluation equation (15):
functionfshown in equation (1) as follows: $(rand() < ~(vj,::'))) then x!,:,;') = I ;
f = 1/ wij (x, >,sij (x, 1, Dij (x, >,U i j (x,>) (13) else x!,!,;') = o . (15)
where f is the function of individual xl. Thus, better
individuals will generate better evaluation values. Step 8 Test whether every new individual ~ l ( ~ + is l) a
feasible combination. If it is a feasible combination
4.3 Implementation of the BPSO for UC Solution and its new evaluation value f of last individual
The searching procedures of the proposed BPSO
method are as shown below. xi k + l ) is better than the previous pbestl, then the
Step 1 To .generate randomly many individuals, each current individual xik+') is set to be pbestl.
individual x, is a matrix with the dimension equal to Subsequently, if the best pbestl is better than gbest,
NxL. N is the number of generators and T is the
the pbestl is set to be gbest.
number of scheduling period (T=24). Each Step 9 If the maximum iteration number is reached, then go
individual can be represented as Figure (1). to Step 10. Otherwise, go to Step 3.
Step 2 To test whether every individual is a feasible Step10 The individual that generated the latest gbest
combination or not, each feasible combination must indicates the optimal units-scheduled combination
satisfy system constraints. Selecting those feasible of during a specific operating period.
combinations makes up a population X by X=[xl, Figure (2) shows the procedures for generating feasible
x2, ... , XJ', where L is the size of the population.
combination solutions and constructing an initial
The population is a three-dimension matrix with the
population.
dimension equal to N x T x L .
Step 3 Calculate the evaluation value of each individual xl V. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
using the evaluation function f as given by equation The efficiency of the proposed method was verified by
(13). The evaluation value is the sum of the solving the bench-test unit commitment problem using a
production cost and the transition cost. 24-hour scheduling horizon, in three practical power
Step 4 Compare each individual's evaluation value with the systems. The spinning reserve was assumed to be greater
individual's pbest. The individual who owns the best than 5% of the load demand in each study system. To
evaluation value among pbests is set to be gbest. calculate easily the transition cost of each feasible
Step 5 Modify the member (gene) velocity vl of each combination, the shut-down cost Dv has been taken to be
individual XI according to equation (14), which is a equal to 0 for every unit.
three-dimension mathematical equation: Although the PSO method seems to be sensitive to the
v!,:') =w * "$5 + c , * rand()*( pbest,,,, - x!,:,)~) + tuning of some weights or parameters, according to the
experiences of many experiments, the following BPSO
c2 *Rand()* (gbest,, - x:,:,;. ) , parameters are used:
i= 1,2, ..., N . t=1,2, ..., 7:j=1,2, ... ,L. (14) 'inertia weight factor w is set by equation (12), where

42 1
 wm,=0.9 and wmin=0.4, scheduling duration is $581,450. Table (4) shows the
'the limit of velocity change was as V " = 2 and simulation results including the production cost, transition
Vnin,-2, cost, and spinning reserve capacity of each scheduling time
interval, unit-scheduled for 24-hour duration and the total
'the acceleration constant was c,=2 and c2=2, generation cost. The total generation cost of the best
'population size = 30, combination of scheduled-units is $565,804. Figure (3)
shows the curve of the scheduling generation and load
'generations=50. demand. Figure (4) shows the convergence tendency of the
The software was written in Matlab language and best evaluation value in the population during BPSO
executed on a Pentium 111 550 personal computer with 256 processing.
MB RAM.

4 Generate randomly a unit-scheduled

combination, which is a matrix (individual).

Get the row values of the matrix and

calculate units' start-up time and shut-down
time ( P" & PFf)

calculate the total generations in each

scheduling time interval

Figure (4) Convergence tendency of the evaluation value

Table (3) Best individual in the initial population
Hour Unii Producuon ransition Splnnmg Generationschedule (MWI
Schedule Cost ($1 Cost (S) Reaerm

individual=individuaI+ 1

Figure (2) Flowchart of constructing an initial population.

5.1 Example I : 10-unit system

The first bench-test unit commitment problem used
consisted of 10 units and a 24-hour scheduling horizon. The
generators and demand data for this problem are shown in
Table (1) and Table (2), respectively [5][8].

In this simulation, the dimensions of an individual and

a population are 10x24 and 10x24~30,respectively. Table
(3) shows the best combination of scheduled-units in the
initial population. The total generation cost through the

422

5.2 Example I1 :26-unit system
The second unit commitment problem consisted of 26
units and a 24-hour scheduling horizon. The generators and
demand data for this problem are shown in Table (5) and
Table (6), respectively.
In this simulation, the dimensions of an individual and
a population are 26x24 and 26x24~30,respectively. Table
(7) shows the simulation results including the production
cost, transition cost, and spinning reserve capacity of each
scheduling time interval, unit-scheduled for 24-hour
duration and the total generation cost. The total generation
cost of the best combination of scheduled-units is $773,191.
Figure (5) shows the curve of the scheduling generation
and load demand. Figure (6) shows the convergence
tendency of the best evaluation value in the population
during BPSO processing.
As seen in the simulation results of the two sample
systems, their solutions are near optimal and also satisfy
completely the system constraints in this UC problem.
.*U".
Figure (5) Scheduling gencmtion-load curve
Figure (6) Convergence tendency of the evaluation value
Table (6) Hourly load Demand
Hour I / I
2 1 3 1 4 1.5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 ) 1 0 ) 1 I
, ,..... ,
nunmnrii~w1l2223
1..1.11 l" , , , , , ,
12052 11938 11881 11824 11825.5 11881.0 11995 12280 12508 12565
Hour [ 13 1 14 [ 15 [ 16 [ 17 [ 18 [ 19 [ 20 [ 21
Demond(MW))2565 12508 12479.512479.512593.512850
795 x 1 0 0
Figure (7) Comparison of convergence property
Figure (8) Distribution of the best evaluation value and its total
generation cost of each trial
5.3 Comparison with GA Method
To show the advantages of the proposed method, we
also implemented a solution approach using the GA method
[ 5 ] [ 8 ] . We will compare the performance of the two
methods using the same evaluation function and individual
definition. The following GA parameters were used:
Crossover rate Pc=0.8, mute rate P,=O.Ol, population
size = 30, and generations=50.
1. Convergence Characteristic
Figure (7) showed the convergence property of the
26-unit system. As can be seen, both the PSO and GA have
rapid convergence characteristics. However, because the
GA brings premature convergence, its evaluation value is
smaller and the total generation cost is larger. On the
contrary, the PSO has better evaluation value and smaller
total generation cost.
2. Solution Quality
In the meantime, at each sample system we also
performed 50 trials using the two proposed methods to
examine the variation in their evaluation values and total
generation costs, and compared their quality of solution. In
addition, the best, worst, and average generation cost were
also obtained by the two methods. The results were shown
in Table (8). Figure (8) showed the distribution of the best
evaluation value and the total generation cost of each trial
(26-unit system).
As can be seen, the average generation cost and the
standard deviation obtained using the PSO method are
smaller. Simultaneously, the generation cost generated
variation in a small range, thus verifying that the PSO
method has better quality of solution and convergence
12 I characteristic.
, , ,
,
12593.5 ,
1 22 1 23 I 24
12821.5 12764.5)2679 12662 12479.5(2308.5
423
 D. Irisarri, Short-term Generation Scheduling with Transmission
and Environmental Constraints Using Augmented Lagrangian
Relaxation, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.
1294-1301,August. 1994.
3. A. G. Bakirtzis and C. E. Zoumas, Lambda of Lagrangian
Relaxation Solution to Unit Commitment Problem, IEE Proc.-Gener.
Transm Distrib., Vol. 147, No. 2, pp. 131-136 March 2000.
4. Tim T. Maifeld and Gerald B. Sheble, Genetic-based Unit
Commitment Algorithm, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 11,
No. 3, pp. 1359-1370, August. 1996.
5. S A. Kazarlis, A. G. Bakirtzis and V. Petridis, A Genetic Algorithm
Solution to The Unit Commitment Problem, IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.83-92, Feb. 1996.
6. A. H. Mantawy, Youssef L. Abdel-Magid and Shokri Z. Selim, A
Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Unit Commitment, LEEE Trans.
on Power Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 197-204, Feb. 1998.
7. C. J. Aldridge, S. McKee and J. R. McDonald, Knowledge-based
Genetic Algorithm for Unit Commitment, IEE roc.-Gener. Transm
Distrib., Vol. 148, No. 2, pp. 146-152, March2001.
8. K. S . Swarup and S. Yamashiro, Unit Commitment Solution
Methodology Using Genetic Algorithm, IEEE Trans. on Power
Systems, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.87-91, Feb. 2002.
9. D. B. Fogel, Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy
of Machine Intelligence, 2dedition, IEEE Press, 2000.
10. J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm Optimization,
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Netwroks,
Vol. IV, pp. 1942-1948, Perth, Australia, 1995.
11. Y. Shi and R. C. Eberhart, Empirical Study of Particle Swarm
Optimization, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, pp. 1945-1950, Piscataway, 1999.
12. Peter J. Angeline, Using Selection to Improve Particle Swarm
Optimization, Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on
Evolutionary Computation, pp. 84-89, Anchorage, May 1998.
13. J . Kennedy and R. Eberhart, A Discrete Binary Version of the
Particle Swarm Optimization, Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Neural Netwroks, Vol. IV, pp. 4104-4108, Perth,
Australia, 1997.
14. Hirotaka Yoshida, Kenichi Kawata, and Yoshikazu Fukuyama. A
10-unit system (sec.) 1 26-unit system(sec.) Particle Swarm Optimization for Reactive Power and Voltage
BPS0 168.73 I 516.57 Control Considering Voltage Security Assessment, IEEE Trans. on
GA 62.29 87.33 Power Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1232-1239, Nov. 2000.
15. M. A. Abido, Particle Swarm Optimization for Multi-machine
Power System Stabilizer Design, Proceedings of IEEE PES
Summer Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 1346-1351,2001.

Zwe-Lee Gaing received Ph.D. degree from National Sun Yat-Sen

University in Taiwan in 1996. He works as an associate professor of the
Electrical Engineering of Kao-Yuan Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan 821. His research interests are in the filed of artificial intelligence
with application to power system operation and control.

424