> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Determination of the Loading Margin in Power
Systems Via Modified Barrier Lagrangian
Function Method
Zeferino, C. L, De Sousa, V. A., Da Costa, G. R. M., Member, IEEE
Abstract—In this paper the Modified Barrier
Lagrangian Function (MBLF) method, i.e., a variant of the
Interior Point method, is applied for the determination of
the buses with the smallest loading margin and the
smallest magnitude voltage in power systems, respectively.
For the formulation of the problem, the power flow
equations are in a parameterized form, and the inequality
constraints are the voltage limits in the buses and the
reactive generation limits in the buses with reactive
control. The results obtained with the static optimization
technique MBLF used in this study are confronted with
the results obtained with the Primal-dual Barrier
Logarithmic method (PDBL). Test results for the IEEE 14
and IEEE 57-bus test systems are presented to
demonstrate the robustness and the effectiveness of the
proposed algorithm.
Index Terms—Loading Margin Problem, Maximum
Loading Point, Modified Barrier Lagrangian Function
Method, Primal-dual Logarithmic Barrier Method,
Voltage Collapse, Voltage Magnitude.
I. INTRODUCTION
T he continuous interconnection in power systems,
generated by economical, political, social, and
environmental factors has increased the complexity of power
systems, which operate closer to their operating limits of
stability.
Manuscript received April 18, 2008. This work was supported by FAPESP
- Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.
C. L. Zeferino works at the Electrical Engineering Department,
Engineering School of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, 13566-590 Brazil,
Tel: 55 16 3373-8152, Fax: 55 16 3373-9372 (e-mail: crislion@
sel.eesc.usp.br).
V. A. de Sousa works at the Electrical Engineering Department,
Engineering School of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, 13566-590 Brazil,
Tel: 55 16 3373-8152, Fax: 55 16 3373-9372 (e-mail: vsousa@
sel.eesc.usp.br).
G. R. M. da Costa works at the Electrical Engineering Department,
Engineering School of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, SP,
Brazil (e-mail: geraldo@ sel.eesc.usp.br).
1
The phenomenon of voltage collapse typically occurs in
heavily loaded power systems, weakened by transmission
lines outages, or subjected to reactive power shortages. It is
associated with reactive power deficiencies, and usually
results in widespread blackouts, when the supply of power to
the consumers of a system or an area is interrupted, causing
the most diverse economical and social damages [1, 2, 3, 4].
Voltage collapse is preceded by uniformly decreasing
voltage at some major buses in a heavily loaded electric power
system. Contingencies, as unexpected line outages often
contribute to voltage collapse.
The most fundamental measurement of proximity to voltage
collapse is “loading margin” defined as the maximum amount
of additional load in a specific pattern of load increase that
can be added to the system’s operating load point (base-case)
before a voltage collapse occurs. Contingencies generally
reduce or even eliminate the loading margin.
It has been found that voltage magnitudes are not a good
indication of proximity voltage collapse and there is not a
necessary relationship between voltage collapse proximity and
bus voltage magnitude. Although some bus voltage can be
inside the acceptable limits its loading margin is smaller than
the other buses. In this case, the collapse point is very close
and an analysis of the voltage magnitudes would take to
incorrect results [5, 6, 7].
II. THE PROPOSED METHOD
Calculating the loading margin by considering a specific
scenery of load increase is necessary to power systems
operation and planning. In this paper the loading margin is
obtained using Modified Barrier Lagrangian Function method,
a variant of the Interior Point method [8,9]. For the problem
formulation, the power flow equations are in a parametrized
form, and the inequality constraints are the voltage limits in
the buses and the reactive generation limits in the buses with
reactive control. In order to verify the effectiveness of the
proposed approach, the IEEE 14 and IEEE 57-bus test system
obtained are shown as follows.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

III. MODIFIED BARRIER LAGRANGIAN FUNCTION METHOD ⎡V ⎤

APPLIED TO SOLVE THE MAXIMUM LOADING PROBLEM
In the Modified Barrier Lagrangian Function Method [10],
the bounded constraints are transformed into two inequalities.
Slack variables are introduced, transforming these inequalities
into equalities. The slack variables are relaxed and treated by
the MBF. A Lagrangian is associated with the problem. The
first-order necessary conditions are applied to this function,
generating a system of nonlinear equations, whose roots are
calculated by Newton's method.
The maximum loading problem applying the MBLF can be
represented as:
Maximize α (1)
suject to
d = ⎢⎢δ ⎥⎥
(6)
⎢⎣α ⎥⎦
Where,
V is the voltage magnitude vector of all buses of the system;
δ is the phase angle vector of the voltage in all buses, ,
excepting slack bus;
The maximum loading problem can be solved by the MBLF
approach, in which the positive slack variables are introduced
to transform the inequality constraints into the equality ones.
These slack variables are relaxed by the barrier parameter.
This represents an expansion of the feasible region of the
original problem, which can be write as the the following
Lagrangian function:
L(α , x, s, λ , π ) = α − μ ∑ u 1i ln (μ −1 s1i + 1) − μ ∑ u 2i ln (μ −1 s 2i + 1) −
nb nb

Power system equality constrains : i =1 i =1

Δ P i = PGi − Pdoi + α (PGi − Pdoi ) − Pi cal
− μ ∑ u 3 j ln (μ s 3 j + 1) − μ ∑ u 4 j ln (μ −1 s 4 j + 1) −
npv npv
−1
i = 1, 2 ,..., nb (2)
j =1 j =1
nb −1

Δ Q i = QGi − Q doi + α (QGi − Q doi ) − Qical − ∑ λ1k ( PGk − Pd 0 k + α ( PGk − Pd 0 k ) − Pkcalc ) −

k =1
i = 1, 2 ,..., npq (3) npq
− ∑ λ 2l (QGl − Q d 0l + α (QGl − Q d 0l ) − Qlcalc ) −
l =1
Voltage magnitude buses inequality constrains :
− ∑ π 1i (Vi min − Vi − s1i ) − ∑ π 2i (Vi max − Vi + s 2i ) −
nb nb
V i min ≤ V i ≤ V i max
i = 1, 2 ,..., nb (4) i =1 i =1

− ∑ π 3 j (Q − Q j − s 3 j ) − ∑ π 4 j (Q max − Q j + s4 j )
npv npv
min
j j
j =1 j =1
Re active power generation limits :
Q min
≤ Q Gi ≤ Q max
Gi Gi
(5) (7)
i = 1, 2 ,..., npv
Where,
Where u1 ∈ R p , u2 ∈ R p , λ ∈ R m , π 1 ∈ R p and π 2 ∈ R p
nb is the number of system buses;
npq is the number of system load bus; are the Lagrange multipliers vectors. Function (5) is called the
npv is the number of system generations; modified barrier Lagrangian function. The first-order
α is the parameter of load increase; necessary conditions are applied to the modified barrier
Lagrangian function, generating nonlinear system equations:
Pd 0i is the initial active power at bus i;
Where u1 and u 2 ∈ R , u 3 and u 4 ∈ R npv , λ1 ∈ R
nb −1
nb
,
Pi calc is the active power injected calculated at bus i;
λ2 ∈ R npq
, π 1 and π 2 ∈ R , nb
π 3 and π 4 ∈ R npv
are the
Qd 0i is the initial reactive power at bus i;
Lagrange multipliers vectors, s1 ∈ R and s3 ∈ R nb
are the npv

Qicalc is the reactive power injected calculated at bus i; slack variables vector, s2 ∈ Rnb and s4 ∈ Rnpv are slack
PGi , PGi min and PGi max is the active power generation in the variables vector and μ is the barrier parameter.
bus i, and its minimum and maximum limits, respectively, for The first-order necessary conditions are applied to the
all controled voltage bus; modified barrier Lagrangian function, generating nonlinear
max system equations:
Vi , Vi min and Vi is the voltage magnitude at bus i, lower
∇L(α , x, s1 , s 2 , s 3 , s 4 , λ1 , λ 2 , π 1 , π 2 , π 3 , π 4 ) = 0 (8)
and upper limits, respectively, for all system buses;
QGi , QGi min and QGi max is the reactive power generation at bus
i, with their lower and upper limits, respectively, for all
controlled voltage buses;
The control and state variable vector is give by:
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

Where: m p p
∇ 2xx L = ∇ 2xx f ( x) + ∑ λi ∇ 2xx g i ( x) + ∑ π 1 j ∇ 2xx h j ( x) + ∑ π 2 j ∇ 2xx h j ( x) ,
i =1 j =1 j =1
⎡ 1 − ( PG − Pd 0 ) − (QG − Qd 0 ) ⎤ and the sub matrixes S1 , S2 , S3 and S4 are given by:
⎢− λT J ( x) − λT J ( x) − π T J ( x) − π T J ( x) − (π ) − (π )⎥
⎢ 1 p 2 q 1 Q 2 Q 3 4 ⎥
⎢ u1 ⎥ ⎛ u ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
⎢ − −1 + π1 ⎥
⎜ −1 11
⎜ ( μ s11 + 1)
2
0 ⎟
⎟
u
⎜ −1 21 0 ⎟
μ s1 + 1 ⎜ ( μ s 21 + 1)
2
⎟
⎢ ⎥ S1 = ⎜ O ⎟ S2 = ⎜ O ⎟
u ⎜ ⎟
⎢ − −1 2 −π2 ⎥ ⎜⎜ 0
u1nb
⎟
⎜ u 2 nb ⎟
⎢ ⎥ ( μ −1s1nb + 1) 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟
( μ −1 s 2 nb + 1) 2 ⎟⎠
μ s2 + 1 ⎝ ⎝
⎢ u3 ⎥ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
⎢ − −1 + π3 ⎥ ⎜ u31
0 ⎟ ⎜ u 41
0 ⎟
⎢ μ s3 + 1 ⎥ ⎜ ( μ −1 s31 + 1) 2 ⎟ ⎜ ( μ −1s41 + 1) 2 ⎟
∇d L = ⎢ S3 = ⎜ ⎟ S4 = ⎜ ⎟
u4 ⎥ ⎜
O
⎟ ⎜
O
⎟
⎢ − −1 −π4 ⎥ ⎜ 0
u3npv ⎟ ⎜ 0
u 4 npv ⎟
⎢ μ s 4 + 1 ⎥ ⎜
⎝ ( μ −1 s3npv + 1) 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜
⎝ ( μ −1 s4 npv + 1) 2 ⎟⎠
⎢ gp ⎥
⎢ gq ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ V − V − s1
min
( ⎥ ) The Hessian matrix, W, is sparse and symmetric. These
⎢
⎢ V max
− V + s2 ( ⎥
⎥ ) characteristics make it possible to apply sparsity techniques.
⎢
⎢
Q min − Q − s3 ( ⎥
⎥
) Using the search directions obtained from (10), the vectors
of variables x, s, λ and π are updated as follows:
⎣⎢ Q max
− Q + s 4 ( ⎦⎥ )
α k +1 = α k + α p Δx k
(9)
x k +1 = x k + α p Δx k
with:
nb −1 s1k +1 = s1k + α p Δs1k
gp = − ∑ ( PGk − Pd 0 k + α ( PGk − Pd 0 k ) − P calc
)
k =1
k
s 2k +1 = s 2k + α p Δs 2k
npq
s 3k +1 = s 3k + α p Δs 3k
gq = −∑ (QGl − Q d 0l + α (QGl − Qd 0l ) − Qlcalc )
l =1 s 4k +1 = s 4k + α p Δs 4
J p ( x ) = (∇ x gp1 ( x ),..., ∇ x gp nb −1 ( x )) e J q ( x ) = (∇ x gq1 ( x ),..., ∇ x gq nb −1 ( x ))
λ1k +1 = λ1k + α d Δλ1k
and
J Q ( x ) = (∇ x Q1 ( x ), ∇ x Q 2 ( x ),..., ∇ x Q npv ( x )) , which are the λk2 +1 = λk2 + α d Δλk2
Jacobian matrices. π1k +1 = π1k + α d Δ π1k
Newton’s method is applied to the nonlinear system
π 2k +1 = π 2k + α d Δπ 2k
equations (8) to find the search direction vector Δd. The
application of Newton’s method results in linear system π 3k +1 = π 3k + α d Δπ 3k
equations, which can be represented by
π 4k +1 = π 4k + α d Δπ 4k
WΔd = −∇L (10)
Where α p and α d are the scalar step sizes used to update
where:
Δd T = (Δα , Δx, Δs1 , Δs 2 , Δs 3 , Δs 4 , Δλ1 , Δλ 2 , Δπ 1 , Δπ 2 , Δπ 3 , Δπ 4 ) the primal and dual variables, respectively. The step sizes are
calculated by adapting the strategy [11],[ 12] , as follows:

s
⎡
⎢
0 0 0 0 0 − PG + Pd 0 − QG + Qd 0 0 0 0 0 0⎤
− J q ( x) − J Q ( x) − J Q ( x) − I − I ⎥⎥
α p = min { − : Δs < 0 and s > 0 , 1 }
⎢ 0 ∇ 2xx L 0 0 0 0 − J p ( x) Δs
⎢ 0 0 μ −1S1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 μ −1S2 0 0 0 −I 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢
⎢
0 0 0 0 μ −1S3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0⎥
⎥ π1 π2
⎢ − P + Pd 0 0 I 0 0 μ −1S4 0 0 0 −I 0 0⎥ α d = min { − : Δπ 1 < 0 and π 1 > 0, : Δπ 2 < 0 and π 2 > 0, 1 }
W =⎢ G
− Q + Qd 0 − J p ( x) 0 −I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥ Δπ 1 Δπ 2
⎢ G ⎥
⎢ 0 − J q ( x) 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 − J Q ( x) 0 0 0 −I 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢
⎢
0 − J Q ( x) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥
⎥
The barrier parameter is smoothly decreased according to
⎢
⎢
0
0
−I
−I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0⎥
0 ⎥⎦
[13] an the Lagrange multiplier vector, u, is updated according
⎣
to rule [14] which is very slow in terms of computational
W is the Hessian matrix, where complexity.
The MBF [ ln( μ −1s + 1) ] expands the feasible region of the
original problem making it possible to choose an infeasible
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

starting point ( s > − μ ) and also to reach the limits of the
inequality constraints ( s = 0 ). In the solution the conditions
s ≥ 0 , π 1 ≥ 0 and π 2 ≤ 0 must be met.
In the MBLF method the barrier parameter and the
Lagrange multiplier associated with the modified barrier
function, u, are guided iteratively to a stationary point, x*, of
the original problem. It was shown in [15] that if the initial
Lagrange multiplier, u, is positive, and the barrier parameter is
below a certain threshold value μ , then the method
converges.
The MBLF algorithm treats all controls as continuous
variables during the initial solution process. Once the
continuous solution has found each discrete variable, i.e.,
transformer taps, phase shifter angles, shunt capacitors and
reactors banks, it is moved to its nearest discrete setting. The
maximum loading problem is solved again concerning the
remaining continuous variables using the first continuous
solution as the initial point.
The convergence criterion is a test to verify the algorithm
convergence, as follows:
agreement with the database for each power system. The
active power generated in the slack bus was liberated, while in
the buses with reactive control the active power was specified
in agreement with the values of the databases. The reactive
power generated in the slack bus was liberated, while in the
buses with reactive control limits the reactive power was
specified in agreement with the values of the databases. The
taps were set in the same values of the databases.
Test 2: The same as the previous one, except for the fact that
the reactive power generations in the buses with reactive
control were liberated.
A. Test 1 applied to IEEE 14-bus test system
In the Table 1, the results obtained for the solution of PDBL
and MBLF methods applied to IEEE 14-bus test system are
presented.
TABLE I
RESULTS OF THE PDBL AND MBLF METHODS
APPLIED TO IEEE 14-BUS TEST SYSTEM WITH REACTIVE CONTROL

ν 1k ≤ ξ1 PDBL MBLF
g(x k ) ≤ ξ1
ν 2k ≤ ξ 2 or ∞ Α 0,831 0,835
ν 2k ≤ ξ 2 ITERATIONS 11 5
ν 3k ≤ ξ 3 BUS WITH THE SMALLEST VOLTAGE
14 14
PROFILE
BUS WITH THE SMALLEST LOADING
11 11
is satisfied, where: MARGIN

ν 1 = g ( x) ∞ , The voltage distribution along the system, shown in Fig. 1,

k −1
is practically identical for both methods, this is resulted of the
f (x ) − f (x
k
) proximity between the maximum loading points.
ν2 = ,
1 + f (x k )
* Método PDBL
ν 3 = max{h j ( x)}, j = 1, K ,2 p. • Método MBLF

If criteria ν 1k ≤ ξ 1 , ν 2k ≤ ξ 2 and ν 3k ≤ ξ 3 are fulfilled, then

primal feasibility and scaled dual feasibility are satisfied,
which means that iterate k is a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)
point of accuracy ξ1. When numerical problems prevent us
from checking this condition, the algorithm stops as soon as
feasibility of the equality constraints is achieved along with
very small fractional changes in the objective value and
negligible changes in the variables. Typical tolerances are
ξ1=10-3, ξ2=10-2 and ξ3=10-1.

IV. RESULTS
The improved methodology proposed for the determination
of the bus with the smallest magnitude voltage and the
smallest loading margin was tested on the IEEE 14 and 57-bus
test system. The comparative study between the methods was Fig. 1. Loading Margin X Magnitude Voltage to IEEE-14 test system with
made based on the accomplished of the following tests: reactive control

Test 1: The magnitudes voltages of the buses were liberated, Concerning convergence, the MBLF method converged with
except for the slack bus whose voltage was stipulated in a lower number of iterations than the PDLB method. It can
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

be observed in Table 1 and in Fig. 1, that the bus 14 presents TABLE III
RESULTS OF THE PDBL AND MBLF METHODS
the smallest magnitude voltage and the bus 11 has the smallest APPLIED TO IEEE 14-BUS TEST SYSTEM WITH REACTIVE CONTROL
loading margin.
PDBL MBLF
B. Test 2 applied to IEEE 14-bus test system α 0,542 0,556
Iterations 35 11
Comparing the Tables 1 and 2, it is possible to observe a Bus with the smallest
31 31
difference betwen the maximum loading margin points, due to magnitude voltage
in the Test 2 all the reactive power generation of the system Bus with the smallest
32 32
loading margin
was liberated enlarging the loading margin point.
Considering Table 2, bus 14 presents the smallest voltage The voltage distribution along the system, shown in Fig. III,
magnitude when the limit of reactive power generation is not is practically identical for both methods, resulting in the
considered, and the bus 11 has the smallest loading margin. proximity between the loading margin points. Concerning
convergence, MBLF method converged with a lower number
TABLE II of iterations than the PDLB method. In Table III and in Fig.
RESULTS OF THE PDBL AND MBLF METHODS III can be observed that the bus with the smallest magnitude
APPLIED TO IEEE 14-BUS TEST SYSTEM WITHOUT REACTIVE CONTROL
voltage is the bus 31 and the bus with the smallest loading
PDBL MBLF margin is the bus 32.
α 3,103 3,107
Iterations 13 10 * Método PDBL
Bus with the smallest magnitude
14 14
• Método MBLF
voltage
Bus with the smallest loading margin 11 11

* Método PDBL
• Método MBLF

Fig. 3. Loading Margin X Magnitude Voltage to IEEE-57 test system with

reactive control

D. Test 2 applied to IEEE 57-bus test system

Fig. 2. Loading Margin X Magnitude Voltage to IEEE-14 test system without Comparing Tables III and IV, it is possible to observe that
reactive control there is a difference between the maximum loading points, this
The convergence of the MBLF method was faster than the is due to in Test 2 all the reactive power system generation
PDLB, as shown in Table II , once that the number of was liberated, enlarging the maximum loading point.
iterations of the MBLF method was lower than the PDLB
TABLE IV
method. RESULTS OF THE PDBL AND MBLF METHODS
APPLIED TO IEEE 14-BUS TEST SYSTEM WITHOUT REACTIVE CONTROL
C. Test 1 applied to IEEE 57-bus test system
PDBL MBLF
The results obtained in Test 1 for the IEEE 57-bus test system α 0,914 0,931
are presented in Table III. For both implemented Iterations 94 20
methodologies the system presented extremely similar results Bus with the smallest
31 31
voltage profile
in terms of maximum loading point. Bus with the smallest
32 32
loading margin
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
According to Table IV and Fig. IV, bus 31 has the smallest
voltage magnitude and bus 32 presents the smallest loading
margin.
* Método PDBL
• Método MBLF
Fig. 4. Loading Margin X Magnitude Voltage to IEEE-57 test system without
reactive control
The convergence of the MBLF method was faster than the
convergence of the PDBL method. As shown in Table IV the
number of iterations of the FLBM method was lower than the
number of iterations of the PDBL method.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper was determined the bus with the smallest
voltage magnitude and the bus with the smallest loading
margin using a variant of the method of interior points, i.e., the
Function Lagrangeana Modified Barrier method, considering
IEEE 14 and IEEE 57-bus test system. The maximum load
point was also determined for both systems.
For the formulation of the problem the power flow
equations are in a parameterized form, and the inequality
constraints are the voltage limits in the buses and the reactive
generation limits in the buses with reactive control.
The MBLF method depends on the empiric values for the
barrier parameter and on the parameter used in its updating.
Despite that dependence after the adjustment of those
parameters, the convergence is reached, that is, a power
system operation point is obtained, satisfying the constraints
of the problem. It was verified that the method is very efficient
for empirical parameters adjusted. The unfeasible constraints
become feasible during the iterative process.
Comparing the Primal-dual Logarithmic Barrier method and
the Modified Barrier Lagrangian Function method presented
similar results, but the Modified Barrier Lagrangian Function
method has the advantage of the number of iterations being
always smaller.
6
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE/PES Power System Stability Subcommittee, Voltage Stability
Assessment: Concepts, Practices and Tools, Special Publication, Final
Draft, August 2003.
[2] KUNDUR P; GAO, B. (1994a). Practical Consideration in Voltage
Stability Assesment. In: Proceedings of IV SEPOPE- Symposium of
Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning. Foz do
Iguaçu. IV SEPOPE.
[3] TAYLOR, C. (1994). Power System Voltage Stability. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
[4] PAL, M. K. (1992). Voltage Stability Conditions Considering Load
Characteristics. Transactions on Power Systems. Vol.01, No. 01, pp.243-
249.
[5] Clark HK. New challenges: voltage stability. IEEE Power ENG. Rev
1990; April:33-7
[6] MOHAMED A., JASMON G.B. (1996). Determining the weak segment
of a power system with voltage stability considerations. Electric
Machines and Power Systems, 24:555-568.
[7] NEMA O.M.S, CASTRO C.A.(1996). Índice de proximidade ao colapso
de tensão baseado nas perdas de potência ativa – potencial de utilização
na operação em tempo real. III SIMPASE, pp 1-7.
[8] IRISARRI, G. D; Wang, X; Tong, J; Mokhtari, S. (1997). Maximum
Loadability of Power Systems Using Interior Point Non-Linear
Optimization Method. In: IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. Vol.12,
nº 1, pp. 162-172.
[9] BARBOSA L. V; SALGADO R; ALMEIDA K. C. (1998). Estudo do
Máximo Carregamento de Sistemas de Potência via Algoritmos de
Pontos Interiores. Proceedings of XII Brazilian Automatic Control
Conference. Uberlândia – MG, vol. VI, pp.2005-2010.
[10] Sousa, V. A. (2006). Resolução do Problema de Fluxo de Potência
Ótimo Reativo Via Método da Função Lagrangiana Barreira Modificada.
Tese (Doutorado) – Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade
de São Paulo, São Carlos, 2006. 126 páginas.
[11] GRANVILLE, S., “Optimal reactive dispatch through interior
pointmethods”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 9, No 1,
February, 1994.
[12] QUINTANA, V.H., GOMEZ, A., MARTINEZ, J.L. (1995). Nonlinear
Optimal Power Flows by Logarithmic-Barrier Primal-Dual Algorithm.
IEEE NAPS Meeting.
[13] MELMAN, A.; POLYAK, R.A. (1996). The Newton Modified Barrier
Method for QP Problems. Annals of Operations Research, v. 54, p. 465-
519.
[14] POLYAK, R.A. (1992). Modified barrier functions. Mathematical
Programming, v. 54, n. 2, p. 177-222.