Minimization of Ohmic Losses in Power Networks by
Utilization of Interphase Power Controllers
Behrouz Azimian Amin Helmzadeh
Inamori School of Engineering Electrical Engineering Department
Alfred University Amirkabir University of Technology
Alfred, USA Tehran, Iran
mr.behrouz.azimian@ieee.org helmzadeh@aut.ac.ir
Abstract—Installation of flexible alternating current
transmission system (FACTS) devices is a widespread approach
for reducing ohmic losses in power networks. However, the
location and control parameters of these devices should be
determined through an optimization procedure. An interphase
power controller (IPC) is one of the FACTS devices that can
change the active power flow in network branches. However,
the placement of this device has not been discussed yet.
Therefore, an efficient optimization method will be introduced
in this paper based on a genetic algorithm (GA) combined with
optimal power flow (OPF) for IPC placement. Firstly, a simple
novel method for entering the steady state model of IPC into the
power flow equations is proposed. Secondly, the optimal values
of decision variables such as IPC location and its control
parameters will be determined by the proposed optimization
method. The simulation results on IEEE 30-bus and 118-bus
test systems show that the GA-based optimization process is
able to obtain optimal solutions for the mixed integer placement
problem, which would result in a more energy-efficient
transmission system.
Index Terms—Genetic algorithm; IPC placement; ohmic loss
reduction; optimal power flow; optimization
I. INTRODUCTION
Ohmic loss occurs due to energy dissipation in conductors
used for transmission lines, transformers and etc. These losses
are intrinsic in real-world power systems. However, ohmic
losses can be reduced to an optimum level by utilizing proper
strategies and installing compensation devices. Due to the
global energy crisis, power ohmic loss minimization has
attracted more attention in recent years. Many optimization
methods have been proposed for installing compensation
devices to minimize these losses in power networks. Optimal
placement of the power system equipment such as shunt
capacitors, distributed generations (DG) and FACTS devices
have been widely investigated with the aim of power loss
minimization.
Various algorithms have been developed to determine the
most efficient place for compensation devices in power grids.
978-1-5386-7138-2/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Amir Shahirinia
Center of Excellence for Renewable Energy
University of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C., USA
amir.shahirinia@udc.edu
A genetic algorithm (GA) is one of the intelligent
optimization algorithms utilized for the efficient placement of
these devices. It performs a search process imitated from the
mechanism of biological selection and biological genetics [1].
Allocation of FACTS devices in power systems is a relatively
new research area. These devices can contribute in the
reduction of power flow on overloaded lines, which in turn
increases the loadability of the power system. In addition,
FACTS devices can improve the stability, security and
finally, provide a more energy-efficient transmission system.
In [2], a GA is used in a graphical user interface (GUI)
application to determine the optimal multi-type FACTS
location in a more convenient and flexible way for power
grids. Based on the GA, authors in [3] have considered
contractual requirements to identify optimal thyristor
controlled phase shifting (TCPS) location in a power system
network for maximization of system capabilities in an open
power market. In [4], the extended voltage phasors approach
(EVPA) and the well-established line flow index (LFI)
method are compared and it is shown that the former provides
a more accurate indication for the placement of FACTS
controllers. In the most recent literature about the FACTS
device allocation problem, Duan et al, [5] has proposed a
sparse optimization method based on the sparse
characteristics of device placement in power system and the
investment cost of different types of FACTS devices (i.e.,
static VAR compensator (SVC), thyristor-controlled series
compensation (TCSC) and thyristor controlled phase shifting
(TCPS)). This method is combined with optimal power flow
(OPF) to investigate the numbers, locations, initial settings
and even types of FACTS devices simultaneously.
Further studies about the FACTS device allocation and
the corresponding intelligent optimization approaches are
surveyed as follows. The optimal allocation of a unified
power flow controller (UPFC) using a self-adaptive
evolutionary programming (SAEP) is performed in [6].
Optimal location of FACTS shunt-series controllers (i.e.,
phase-shifting transformer (PST), hybrid flow controller
(HFC), and UPFC) by means of nonlinear programming
(NLP) and mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP))
is investigated in [7]. Sensitivity analysis is used for
determination of optimal location of the interline power flow
controller (IPFC) and optimal unified power flow controller
(OUPFC) in [8]. Improved particle swarm optimization
(IPSO) is proposed to determine the optimal location of static
compensator (STATCOM) units in [9], and the brainstorm
optimization algorithm (BSOA), which is a novel promising
heuristic optimization algorithm inspired by brainstorming
process in human beings, is applied to SVC and TCSC
allocation problems [10].
Although many of the previous studies have focused on
the allocation problem for different kinds of FACTS devices,
allocation of the interphase power controller (IPC) has not
been investigated. The purpose of this paper is to present a
new model of IPC that can be used in load flow studies as
well as finding the most efficient place for one IPC device so
as to minimize the power grid loss. The presence of an IPC in
a power grid and its impact on the load flow can be simply
investigated by the proposed model.
Authors in [11] have proposed a method that maximizes the
total transfer capability (TTC) while minimizing the power
loss. Comparative results are presented to show that the
optimum place and settings of UPFC can improve TTC
without compromising the minimization of power loss which
is a challenging issue in UPFC placement.
In the following, we first establish a mathematical model of
the optimal IPC planning problem and present a new model
of IPC, then we solve the optimization problem by a genetic
algorithm by considering the loss minimization and the TTC
maximization.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section II describes the IPC technology. In Section III IPC
will be modeled for load flow studies. Section IV formulates
the proposed objective function optimization approach for
IPC placement with the aim of ohmic loss reduction. Section
IV provides the simulation results. Section V summarizes the
main contributions and conclusions of this paper.
II. IPC TECHNOLOGY
IPC is a power electronic device which is equipped with
thyristor switches. A general electrical model of IPC is shown
in Fig. 1. As shown in the figure, each phase consists of two
parallel branches and each branch contains a reactance
(inductor or capacitor) connected in series with the phase-
shifting device.
Figure. 1 IPC model.
What distinguishes IPC from other FACTS devices is the
way in which the series elements are connected between two
buses. Adjusting the values of the reactances and internal
phase angles, which are the control variables, allows
enormous design flexibility and makes a wide variety of
applications possible. The capability of current control
enables the operator to control the power carried by the IPC
and this could reduce the ohmic loss in network branches
[12]. Indeed, IPC can be adapted to specific operating
conditions. In general, this adaptation can result in an
optimized operation of power systems.
The main capabilities of IPC are robust control of active
and reactive power, fault current limitation and
interconnection of non-synchronous networks [13-15]. The
authors in [16] have shown that power quality can be
enhanced with the use of IPC in power networks. Due to the
capability of controlling active power flow in network
branches, IPC can be installed in power grids with the aim of
power loss minimization.
III. MODELLING IPC FOR LOAD FLOW STUDIES
Minimization of the active power losses in network
branches is the main objective of the presented IPC
placement algorithm. Therefore, a simulation package is
required to calculate the power losses for the both networks
with and without IPC. MATPOWER, which is a simulation
package based on MATLAB, is selected in this paper for
performing load flow calculations. MATPOWER can provide
a high-level set of tools for steady-state power system studies
such as power flow and optimal power flow [17]. This
simulation package contains a set of MATLAB M-files that
can be easily understood and customized by the users.
Fortunately, the steady-state model of all FACTS devices
including IPC can be combined with MATPOWER. For
example, the steady-state model for multi-terminal voltage
source converter high voltage direct current (VSC MTDC) is
introduced in [18] for carrying out sequential AC/DC power
flow. Simulation results of this paper are obtained by
combining the proposed methodology with the
MATPOWER.
In MATPOWER, all branches are modeled with a
standard transmission line π model in series with an ideal
phase shifting transformer which is located at the sending end
of the branch. Therefore, phase shifting can be easily applied
for desired branches in MATPOWER.
The capability of having phase shifting for network
branches is very helpful for combining the steady state model
of IPC with the MATPOWER. Suppose that an IPC should be
installed on the k-th branch of the network which is located
between i-th and j-th buses. As it is shown in Figure 2 the
model the network can be modified by adding one bus and
two branches to the existing branch model.
Figure 2. Modifying existing network model due to installing an IPC on the
k-th branch.
 IV. OPTIMIZATION PROCEEDURE
A. Objective Function
The main goal of the proposed IPC placement algorithm
is minimizing the sum of ohmic losses in network branches.
Therefore, the objective function can be defined as follows:
Ploss
for the network with IPC
f= (1)
Ploss
for the network without IPC
If the active power flows at the sending and receiving
ends of all branches are known, the value of Ploss can be
calculated as below:
N br
Ploss =  (Psendi + Preceivei ) (2)
i =1
Therefore, the value of Ploss can be determined by
performing power flow analysis on the modified network
model (with IPC). This value will change if the location
and/or control parameters of the IPC are changed. Hence, the
value of proposed cost function can be minimized by
determining optimal location for the IPC and optimal values
of control parameters.
B. Optimization Variables
IPC location is the most important variable in the
optimization procedure. In MATPOWER case studies, each
branch has a number that indicates its location. Hence, the
number of selected branches is an integer decision variable in
the optimization process. On the other side, the parameters
Φ1 , Φ 2 , XL , and X C are continuous decision variables that
should be calculated with the aim of ohmic losses
minimization. Hence, the proposed IPC placement is a mixed
integer optimization problem with one integer and four
continuous decision variables.
C. Optimization Constraints
It is noteworthy that there are some equality and
inequality constraints in IPC placement optimization
procedure. For example, voltage magnitudes of all buses and
loading factors of branches should be maintained at an
acceptable range for the network with IPC (inequality
constraints). In addition, the total power demand of the
system must be provided by the generating units with the
minimum cost of generation (equality constraint).
All the above equality and inequality constraints must be
satisfied in the OPF process. Hence, we preferred to calculate
the value of ohmic losses and consequently the value of the
cost function by performing OPF calculations. In such
manner, all equality and inequality constraints will be
satisfied during the optimization procedure. MATPOWER
includes codes for solving the OPF problem. Therefore, the
value of proposed cost function for the networks with and
without IPC can be calculated by using this package.
D. Optimization Method
The mathematical equations of the cost function and
optimization constraints are not clear in terms of decision
variables. In addition, the optimization problem is a mixed
integer one. In such situations, heuristic methods such as GA
can be utilized for minimizing the cost function. As
mentioned before, determination of the cost function value
for a special set of optimization variables is based on OPF
results in MATPOWER. As a result, the proposed objective
function will be formed in MATLAB. A set of M-files should
be prepared in this software to determine the optimal values
of decision variables. However, the GA toolbox in MATLAB
can be utilized for the objective function minimization. It is
noteworthy that this toolbox can solve the mixed integer
optimization problems. Another advantage of the
combination of OPF with GA is the limitation of the
optimization search space. When the cost function for any
iteration is obtained based on OPF calculation, search space
for GA can be limited significantly. Therefore, GA can
achieve the optimal solution much faster and with high
probability the best global solution [19].
Genetic algorithm begins with a set of solutions
(represented by chromosomes) called population. A
chromosome consists of genes that are optimization variables.
Based on fitness function values to the current population, a
new population will be formed by reproduction and crossover
actions. This process will be repeated until some conditions
are satisfied. Figure 3 shows the flowchart of GA
optimization algorithm.
Figure 3. Flowchart of GA optimization algorithm.
A sub-process should be done in all iterations of GA for
evaluating the fitness function values for the population.
Fitness function evaluation is based on OPF results.
Therefore, several OPF should be done in all GA iterations.
OPF calculations may diverge for some chromosomes (each
chromosome is a set of decision variables). In such situations,
the value of cost function will be set equal to an extremely
large value. Therefore, these chromosomes have little chances
to be selected in the next population. The flowchart of fitness
function evaluation is shown in Figure 4.
 Not
Check Stopping Criteria
Satisfied k=1

Modify simulation model for Extract the values of

the current set of decision decision variables Figure 6. Chromosome structure
variables from k-th chromosome
Simulation results are depicted in Figure 7. As it is shown,
Reproduction the best value of the cost function is equal to 0.7532. It
Run OPF for the modified means that the ohmic losses can be reduced by 24.68% via
simulation model NO optimal installation of an IPC in the IEEE 30-bus test system.
YES

Set the cost function value

equal to an extremely large NO Successful OPF k > population size
value

YES

Calculate the value of cost Calculate the sum of losses k=k+1

function for the chromosome of network branches

Figure 4. Flowchart of sub-process for fitness function evaluation in GA

optimization.

V. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. IEEE 30-Bus Test System
The standard IEEE 30-bus test system is selected for Figure 7. GA toolbox outputs for IPC placement in IEEE 30-bus test system
examination of the proposed IPC placement algorithm. The
location of IPC and the values of control parameters should Optimal values of decision variables are shown in the
be determined for the selected test system. The single line TABLE I.
diagram of the IEEE 30-bus test system is shown in Figure 5.
TABLE I. OPTIMAL VALUES OF DECISION VARIABLES
Number of
Phi1 Phi2 XL XC
The selected
(degree) (degree) (ohm) (ohm)
Line
178.25
36 -20.6995 -35.1144 187.2990
55

As it can be seen, the branch with number 36 (that is

Figure 5. Single line diagram of the IEEE 30-bus test system.
The GA optimization method is used for minimizing the
proposed cost function. It must be noted that there are no
equality and inequality constraints in the GA optimization
process. However, all constraints for electrical quantities
(such as voltage magnitudes and loading factors of branches)
will be satisfied via OPF procedure at the stage of fitness
function evaluation. Chromosome structure which consists of
decision variables is shown in Figure 6.
located between 27-th and 28-th buses) has been selected for
IPC installation. The voltage magnitudes and phase angles for
both networks with and without IPC, which are obtained from
OPF results, are depicted in TABLE II.
TABLE II shows that voltage magnitudes for both
networks with and without IPC are maintained between
acceptable ranges. Loading factors of the network branches
are shown in TABLE III.
TABLE III shows that by optimal placement of IPC,
loading factors have been changed significantly in branches
with high resistances values. For example in branches with
numbers 33, 35 and 20 that have high resistances, the values
of loading factors have been decreased by 88.05%,74.86%
and 48.3% respectively.
 TABLE II. PHASE ANGLES AND MAGNITUDES OF VOLTAGES FOR optimization (PSO) and interior point methods can be
NETWORKS WITH AND WITHOUT IPC
implemented by MATLAB for minimizing desired cost
Bus
Without IPC With IPC functions. However, the mentioned methods cannot solve the
number
Voltage Voltage Vmax Vmin Voltage Voltage MIP optimization problems. Therefore, the optimum location
mag angle mag angle of the IPC (as an integer decision variable) is assumed to be
1 0.982 0.000 1.05 0.95 1.050 0.000
known. It means that four continuous decision variables
2 0.979 -0.763 1.1 0.95 1.048 -0.710
3 0.977 -2.390 1.05 0.95 1.035 -2.040
should be determined by the mentioned optimization
4 0.976 -2.839 1.05 0.95 1.033 -2.427 methods. Simulation results are shown in TABLE IV.
5 0.971 -2.486 1.05 0.95 1.034 -2.170
6 0.972 -3.229 1.05 0.95 1.028 -2.706 TABLE IV. OPTIMAL VALUES OF DECISION VARIABLES
7 0.962 -3.491 1.05 0.95 1.021 -2.985
8 0.961 -3.682 1.05 0.95 1.017 -3.062 Cost
9 0.990 -4.137 1.05 0.95 1.034 -4.121 Opt. Phi1 Phi2 XL XC
Method (degree) (degree) (ohm) (ohm) Fun.
10 1.000 -4.600 1.05 0.95 1.037 -4.857 Value
11 0.990 -4.137 1.05 0.95 1.034 -4.121
12 1.017 -4.498 1.05 0.95 1.050 -4.524 Genetic
13 1.064 -3.298 1.1 0.95 1.081 -3.379 -20.699 -35.114 178.255 187.299 0.7532
Algorithm
14 1.007 -5.040 1.05 0.95 1.039 -5.148 Particle
-2.580 -16.765 113.944 166.041 0.7537
15 1.009 -4.814 1.05 0.95 1.041 -5.039 Swarm
16 1.003 -4.839 1.05 0.95 1.038 -4.946 Simulated
-14.012 -38.129 125.085 195.144 0.7603
17 0.995 -4.887 1.05 0.95 1.032 -5.086 annealing
18 0.993 -5.484 1.05 0.95 1.027 -5.675 Interior
-17.055 -28.458 144.577 156.997 0.7560
19 0.987 -5.688 1.05 0.95 1.023 -5.868 point
20 0.990 -5.472 1.05 0.95 1.025 -5.667
21 1.009 -4.621 1.05 0.95 1.042 -5.002 As it can be seen in TABLE IV many combinations of
22 1.016 -4.503 1.1 0.95 1.047 -4.924
23 1.026 -3.756 1.1 0.95 1.052 -4.453 other decision variables ( Φ1 , Φ 2 , X L , and X C ) can lead to
24 1.017 -3.885 1.05 0.95 1.037 -5.100 approximately optimal value for the proposed objective
25 1.044 -2.072 1.05 0.95 1.037 -5.374
function.
26 1.027 -2.476 1.05 0.95 1.020 -5.783
27 1.069 -0.715 1.1 0.95 1.046 -5.287 C. IEEE 118-Bus Test System
28 0.982 -3.215 1.05 0.95 1.035 -2.390
29 1.050 -1.849 1.05 0.95 1.027 -6.473 The standard IEEE 118-bus test system is selected for
30 1.039 -2.643 1.05 0.95 1.016 -7.303 examination of the proposed IPC placement algorithm.
31 - - 1.1 0.9 1.100 -9.462 Simulation results are depicted in Fig.8.

TABLE III. LOADING FACTORS (LF) FOR NETWORKS WITH AND

WITHOUT IPC

Line R LF Line R LF
Num. (pu) Change Num. (pu) change
1 0.02 5.00% 22 0.11 -7.96%
2 0.05 2.21% 23 0.06 -14.17%
3 0.06 1.95% 24 0.03 8.08%
4 0.01 2.46% 25 0.09 6.18%
5 0.05 3.64% 26 0.03 0.32%
6 0.06 2.19% 27 0.03 -40.79%
7 0.01 -2.92% 28 0.07 -36.53%
8 0.05 6.73% 29 0.01 -21.34%
9 0.03 -21.07% 30 0.1 -35.01%
10 0.01 -1.87% 31 0.12 -3.01%
11 0 16.16% 32 0.13 113.22%
12 0 16.16% 33 0.19 -88.05%
13 0 - 34 0.25 0.02%
14 0 14.69% 35 0.11 -74.86%
15 0 -11.91% 36 0 8.64%
16 0 -24.67% 37 0.22 0.12% Figure 8. GA toolbox outputs for IPC placement in IEEE 118-bus test
17 0.12 12.21% 38 0.32 0.13% system.
18 0.07 38.58% 39 0.24 0.06%
19 0.09 -4.59% 40 0.06 2.98% As it is shown, the best value of the cost function is equal
20 0.22 -48.30% 41 0.02 1.12% to 0.8732. It means that the ohmic losses can be reduced by
21 0.08 -15.89%
12.38% via optimal installation of an IPC in the IEEE 118-
B. Comparision With Some Optimization Methods bus test system. Optimal values of decision variables are
In addition to the GA solver, many other optimization shown in TABLE V.
methods such as simulated annealing (SA), particle swarm
 TABLE V. OPTIMAL VALUES OF DECISION VARIABLES IN 118-BUS
TEST SYSTEM
Number of Phi1 Phi2 XL XC
The selected Line (degree) (degree) (ohm) (ohm)
9 74.93 74.94 117.28 120.54
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed a novel model for optimal placement
of an IPC in power systems. IPC is a FACTS device which
can potentially be used for network applications where a
flexible adjustment of the power flow is required. Therefore,
IPC can be installed in power networks in order to minimize
power losses in transmission lines. Along with the optimum
placement of IPC, its control variables should be set as well.
GA has been purposed to simultaneously determine the
location and setting values of IPC. As there are several
constraints in an optimization problem in a power network, a
GA is combined with OPF to meet all the required constraints
such as voltage magnitude at each bus, loading factor and
minimum cost of power generations. The proposed method
has been tested on IEEE 30-bus and 118-bus test systems.
The results show that if optimum place of IPC is found and
corresponding variables are set, power losses could be
reduced by almost 24.68% and 12.38% in IEEE 30-bus and
118-bus test systems, respectively.
REFERENCES
[1] X. Yin and N. Germay, "Investigations on solving the load flow
problem by genetic algorithms," Electric Power Systems Research,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 151-163, 1991.
[2] E. Ghahremani and I. Kamwa, "Optimal placement of multiple-type
FACTS devices to maximize power system loadability using a
generic graphical user interface," IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 764-778, 2013.
[3] L. Ippolito and P. Siano, "Selection of optimal number and location
of thyristor-controlled phase shifters using genetic based
algorithms," IEE Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol. 151, no. 5, pp. 630-637, 2004.
[4] N. K. Sharma, A. Ghosh, and R. K. Varma, "A novel placement
strategy for FACTS controllers," IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 982-987, 2003.
[5] C. Duan, W. Fang, L. Jiang, and S. Niu, "FACTS devices allocation
via sparse optimization," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.
31, no. 2, pp. 1308-1319, 2016.
[6] J. Hao, L. Shi, and C. Chen, "Optimising location of unified power
flow controllers by means of improved evolutionary programming,"
IEE Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol.
151, no. 6, pp. 705-712, 2004.
[7] A. L. Ara, A. Kazemi, and S. N. Niaki, "Multiobjective optimal
location of FACTS shunt-series controllers for power system
operation planning," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 27,
no. 2, pp. 481-490, 2012.
[8] V. S. Rao and R. S. Rao, "A generalized approach for determination
of optimal location of OUPFC," in 2015 International Conference
on Electrical, Electronics, Signals, Communication and
Optimization (EESCO), 2015.
[9] K. Ravi and M. Rajaram, "Optimal location of FACTS devices using
improved particle swarm optimization," International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 49, pp. 333-338, 2013.
[10] A. R. Jordehi, "Brainstorm optimisation algorithm (BSOA): An
efficient algorithm for finding optimal location and setting of
FACTS devices in electric power systems," International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 69, pp. 48-57, 2015.
[11] H. I. Shaheen, G. I. Rashed, and S. Cheng, "Optimal location and
parameter setting of UPFC for enhancing power system security
based on differential evolution algorithm," International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 94-105,
2011.
[12] J. Pourhossein, G. Gharehpetian, and S. Fathi, "Unified interphase
power controller (UIPC) modeling and its comparison with IPC and
UPFC," IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
1956-1963, 2012.
[13] F. Beauregard, J. Brochu, G. Morin, and P. Pelletier, "Interphase
power controller with voltage injection," IEEE transactions on
power delivery, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1956-1962, 1994.
[14] J. Brochu, P. Pelletier, F. Beauregard, and G. Morin, "The
interphase power controller: a new concept for managing power
flow within AC networks," IEEE transactions on power delivery,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 833-841, 1994.
[15] K. Habashi et al., "The design of a 200 MW interphase power
controller prototype," IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 1041-1048, 1994.
[16] V. S. Rao, "Enhancement of power quality in IEEE-14 bus systems
using Interphase power flow controller," Majlesi Journal of Energy
Management, vol. 2, no. 3, 2013.
[17] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sánchez, and R. J. Thomas,
"MATPOWER: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools
for power systems research and education," IEEE Transactions on
power systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12-19, 2011.
[18] J. Beerten, S. Cole, and R. Belmans, "Generalized steady-state VSC
MTDC model for sequential AC/DC power flow algorithms," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 821-829, 2012.
[19] M. H. Aliabadi, B. Behbahani, and A. Jalilvand, "Combination of
GA and OPF for allocation and active and reactive power
optimization in Distributed Generation units," in Power and Energy
Conference, 2008. PECon 2008. IEEE 2nd International, 2008,
pp.1541-1544: IEEE.