See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335428082

Phase Balancing in Power Distribution Systems: A heuristic approach based

on group-theory

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.1109/PTC.2019.8810723

CITATIONS READS

11 87

4 authors:

Miguel Angel Rios-Ocampo Juan Camilo Castaño

Universidad Pontificia Comillas Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira
6 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alejandro Garces Alexander Molina-Cabrera

Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira
190 PUBLICATIONS 2,650 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Camilo Castaño on 06 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Phase Balancing in Power Distribution Systems: A
heuristic approach based on group-theory
Miguel Angel Rios, Juan Camilo Castaño, Alejandro Garcés, Alexander Molina-Cabrera
Department of Electric Power Engineering
Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira (UTP)
Pereira, Colombia
Abstract—Phase balancing is a highly complex problem that
consists of minimizing power losses by swapping generation
and loads along a distribution feeder. Being a discrete and
nonlinear problem, its solution is usually subject to the use of
heuristic methods such as Genetic Algorithms or Particle Swarm
Optimization. However, the representation of the feasible space is
challenging for conventional approaches. This paper proposes a
heuristic algorithm which is based on group-theory, an algebraic
modeling that allows a compact and efficient representation
of the feasible space. The proposed representation not only
allows to develop an algorithm that guarantees feasibility along
the generations, but also permits its implementation in the
crossover and the mutation steps. Formal definitions of groups
are presented and complemented with a matrix homomorphisms
that allows the implementation of the algorithm. Numerical
calculations on the IEEE 13, IEEE 37 and IEEE 123 nodes
test feeders complement the proposed analysis and confirm the
efficiency of what is proposed.
Index Terms—phase balancing, genetic algorithms, group the-
ory, microgrids, power systems operation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Phase balancing is a classical problem in power distribution
systems which consists on phase swapping of the loads in a
distribution feeder in order to reduce power losses, improve
voltage profiles, prevent electricity cost rising and power
quality degradation. The problem has been usually solved by
heuristic algorithms [1] or well by mixed integer represen-
tations that over simplify the nonlinear nature of the model
[2].
Despite being a well-known problem in power distribution
grids, its formulation had been unnoticed in scientific liter-
ature until recent challenges related to renewable energies,
electric vehicles and especially, microgrids. Indeed, renew-
able energy resources included in the distribution network
generation matrix, such as solar panels and low power wind
turbines can be single-phase. In addition, electric vehicles can
have single-phase connection, especially in slow charge cases.
For these reasons, zero sequence currents are created which
increase power losses and can result in damages for the grid
infrastructure as the operational and physical constraints of
the electrical elements might be exceeded. This encourages
the necessity of introducing phase balancing algorithms in
micro-grids and power distribution systems considering the
stochastic nature of the primary resource [3] as well as the
impact of their massive integration to the electric system. In
‹,(((
[4], probabilistic operational planning was considered in order
to optimally minimize phase unbalance in a power distribution
system with a large number of single phase solar generators.
Electric vehicles can be also subject to phase-balancing as was
presented in [5]. The problem also has been identified in the
internal electric grid of airplanes [6] and in ships [7].
Moreover, authors in [8] performed a dynamic rephasing in
smart grid distribution systems using Modified shuffled frog
leaping algorithm and [9] considers simultaneous rephasing
and reconfiguration using a hybrid of the bacterial foraging
algorithm and the Nelder−Mead method. These applications
demonstrate that the problem is still relevant and should
be considered for the operation of future smart distribution
systems.
On the other hand, group theory is a rich branch of the math-
ematics and especially of the abstract algebra, that studies the
properties of some basic algebraic structures namely groups.
These structures allow to study symmetries in all type of real
and abstract problems. In the case of the phase balancing,
these symmetries result obvious when the problem is suitably
represented. This allows an efficient codification of the feasible
space in order to move from feasible to feasible solutions. This
is an advantage for heuristic algorithms where the model is
usually represented by a black box. This paper presents this
representation and shows how it can be used in a Genetic Al-
gorithm without major changes on the conventional operators
of the algorithm. The group operator can be used directly in the
definitions of the mutation and crossover of the genetic algo-
rithm. This is certainly an advantage since the well-established
characteristics of convergence of the algorithm are preserved.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, the first application
of group theory in the codification of heuristic algorithms for
power systems applications was presented in [10]. This paper
continues with this work introducing a Genetic Algorithm that
includes the group operation inside the crossover and mutation
of the algorithm.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents a brief introduction of the basic concepts associated
with group theory and the phase balancing problem coded as
a group. Next, a brief introduction to the basic genetic algo-
rithm and the proposed algorithm description are presented in
Section III. Results on all Study cases are presented in Section
IV and in Section V a results comparison between the phase
balancing algorithm running in two feasible solution spaces are main definitions are presented with a direct application on the
shown. Finally, conclusions are raised in Section VI followed problem.
by relevant references.
Definition 1 (Group). A group G is a nonempty set of elements
II. P HASE BALANCING CODED AS A GROUP with a binary operation (◦) that fulfills 3 axioms for any
element x, y, and z that belong to the group, the axioms are:
A. Phase balancing problem
• Associative: x ◦ (y ◦ z) = (x ◦ y) ◦ z ∈ G.
Feeders reconfiguration and phase swapping are two
• Existence of an identity: There must exist an element e ∈
methodologies for the operative planning of distribution grids
G such that: e ◦ x = x ◦ e.
that modify the topology of the network [11]. Both method-
• Existence of inverse: For every x ∈ G there exists an
ologies can affect the balance of the grid, however, the second
element x−1 such that x ◦ x−1 = x−1 ◦ x = e.
approach has a more direct effect, as mentioned in [2], since it
provides a direct way to balance a feeder in terms of phases. Notice that the binary operation ◦ is an operation that takes
The phase balancing problem considering the loads swapping two elements of the set G and returns an element which also
can be modeled as follows: belongs to the set. In the problem of phase balancing, this
means the operator ◦ takes two feasible solutions and returns
Model 1 (Phase balancing in distribution grids).
a feasible solution.
minimize PL (v, θ, x) (1) The phase balancing problem can be represented using
subject to f (v, θ, x) = 0 (2) group theory by considering the set of possible connections
between the phases of the distribution system and the primary
x∈Ω (3)
load terminals along with the binary operator ◦. This is
where PL are the power losses, f are the equations for the explained in Figure 1, where the set are the 6 possible con-
power flow, v, θ are the nodal voltages and x is the swapping nections of the transformer and the binary operation, consists
actions required to minimize PL . Ω is the set of feasible of changing the connection between three-phase transformer
swapping actions. terminals and the grid.
This is a combinatorial problem where x is a discrete vari-
(e) (y1 )
able and f is a nonlinear/nonconvex constraint. The problem
A B C A B C
associated with this model lies not only in the combinatorial
nature of the problem but also in the representation of the set
Ω. This set requires to identify forbidden actions, for example,
to place two loads on the same phase, or changes on the A B C A B C
sequence of the grid in the case of industrial loads. A large
transformer transformer
set of additional binary constraints are required in that case. A
common approach for this task is to use an indicator function
IΩ (x) defined as (4) which is included directly on the objective (x1 ) (y2 )
function as a penalization factor. A B C A B C
 
0 x∈Ω
IΩ (x) = (4)
∞ x∈ /Ω
Although this approach is computationally feasible, it has A B C A B C
several disadvantages. On one hand, the size of the binary set transformer transformer
is |B| = 29n where n is the number of nodes. However, the
size of the feasible set is only |Ω| = 6n . By using a logarithmic (x2 ) (y3 )
measure, it is obtained that |Ω|/|B| = ln(6)/(9 × ln(2)) = A B C A B C
0.287. In other words, less than 30% of the binary solutions
are feasible. This relation is even smaller for industrial feeders
as will be presented later in this section. On the other hand,
the algebraic properties of the genetic operators under a binary A B C A B C
representation can result in unfeasible solutions even from a transformer transformer
feasible population. This is because of the lack of a continuous
metric for determining the ”level of infeasibility”. The problem Fig. 1. Example of a group formed by the symmetries of phase balancing
is clearly algebraic and not geometric. problem

B. Phase balancing with a group representation This group is equivalent to the symmetry group S3 of
In this section, some necessary concepts to understand an equilateral triangle which is a classical example in the
group theory are explained. For the sake of completeness, the abstract algebra literature (see [12] for more details). Table

,(((0LODQ3RZHU7HFK
I gives the possible group operations and their results after This property can be easily established on M3 by noticing
applying the operator in the corresponding row and column; the symmetry of the subgroup in Table I. Another property of
this arrangement is called Cayley Table (Components in green this group is the following:
represents a subgroup that will be defined later in this section).
Definition 5 (Cyclic group). Let G be a group and x be
TABLE I
any element in G. Then the set < x >= xk : k ∈ Z is a
C AYLEY TABLE FOR THE SYMMETRIC GROUP S3 . subgroup of G named cyclic group. Furthermore, x is called
the generator of < x > which is the smallest subgroup of
◦ e x1 x2 y1 y2 y3
e e x1 x2 y1 y2 y3
G that contains x. It means that any subgroup that contains
x1 x1 x2 e y3 y1 y2 x must also contains its inverse, the identity element and be
x2 x2 e x1 y2 y3 y1 closed under the group operation.
y1 y1 y2 y3 e x1 x2
y2 y2 y3 y1 x2 e x1 Theorem 2 (Cyclic groups). : Every cyclic group is Abelian.
y3 y3 y1 y2 x1 x2 e In addition, the Cartesian product of Abelian groups is also
Abelian.
This codification is valid for one node. In order to extend the
modeling to the entire power distribution grid, it is required to With all these elements, it is possible to formalize the
use the theorem 1 (interested reader can find the demonstration following result
of this theorem in [13]).
Theorem 3. The three-phase subgroup for industrial feeders
Theorem 1 (Direct product of groups [13]). : Let G and H Γ ⊆ Ω given by
be groups. The set G × H is a group under the operation
(x1 , y1 ) ◦ (x2 , y2 ) = (x1 ◦ x2 ), (y1 ◦ y2 ) where x1 , x2 ∈ G and Γ = M3 × M3 · · · × M3 = Mn3 (7)
y1 , y2 ∈ H. Is Abelian. The size of this group is |M3 | = 3n
In this way, it is possible to define explicitly the set of
Notice that this subgroup is half of the size of Ω. This fact
feasible solutions Ω together with a binary operation that
increases the efficiency of the genetic algorithm as will be
guarantees feasibility.
presented in the results.
Definition 2 (Three-phase group). The three-phase group
represented by Ω consists on the Cartesian product of S3 along III. A GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR PHASE BALANCING WITH
the n nodes of the grid. That is GROUP THEORY CODIFICATION

Ω = S3 × S3 × . . . S3 = S3n (5) Genetic algorithms are general purpose search procedures

and the binary operation consists on applying (◦) to each
component of Ω, that is:
A ◦ B = (a1 ◦ b1 , a2 ◦ b2 , . . . , an ◦ bn )
Notice that the size of this group is |Ω| = 6n . Thus, coding
the phase balancing problem with a group theory approach
will reduce the size of the feasible solution space from 29n to
6n .
On the other hand, sequence of the grid must be considered
especially in industrial feeders. A change of sequence produces
automatic change in the direction of rotation for induction
motors. In those cases, the problem is reduced to the set given
by M3 = {e, x1 , x2 } ⊆ S3 , which under the same group
operation forms a group of its own. This idea is formalized in
definition 3 as follows:
Definition 3 (Subgroups). A subgroup is a nonempty subset
of the original group under the same binary operation.
It is possible to identify several subgroups in the group S3 ,
in particular, the group M3 which is colored in Table I. This
group has some additional properties that are relevant for the
optimization problem.
Definition 4 (Abelian or commutative group). An Abelian or
commutative group is a group such that the operation defined
is commutative: x ◦ y = y ◦ x for all x, y ∈ G.
that use principles inspired by natural genetic populations to
optimize several types of practical problems [14] [15]. The
main idea is to represent candidate solutions as individuals
(6) submitted to an evolutionary process, which are represented
as vector arrays named pseudo chromosome. Each chromo-
some has an associated value of an objective function that
determines how suitable the individual is for reproduction. For
the phase balancing problem, these associated values are the
system losses obtained by a three-phase power flow.
First, consider the set N = {0, 1, 2, ...n} as the system
nodes, where n is the number of nodes and L ⊆ N is the set
of load nodes considered to be swapped for losses reduction.
The proposed evolutionary algorithm has several additional
steps compared to the conventional approach:
• Fitness function: Majority of meta-heuristic algorithms
are designed to find the optimal solution of unconstrained
problems. The fitness function is a measure of the
adaptability of the solution if a constrained problem is
considered. That is why an indicator function, as the
one shown in (4), is necessary in order to incorporate
the problem constraints into the objective function. In
this case, an indicator function is not required since the
group codification avoids unfeasible solutions. Hence, the
problem can be solved as:
min PL (vθ, x) ∀ x ∈ Ω (8)

,(((0LODQ3RZHU7HFK
 • Selection operator: Its function is duplicating character- A x2 y2 y3 y2 x2
istics for good solutions while the size of the population
remains constant. In this case, it is proposed a Tourna- B x1 y1 y1 x1 y1
ment Selection [16].
• Variation operator: Creating new solutions is a task car-
Offspring e x2 x1 y3 y2
ried out by this operator. Its aim is incorporating diversity
to the optimization process, by building unique offsprings
Fig. 3. Crossover operator using group representation
that inherit partially characteristics of their parents. The
population of individuals submitted to this operator are
created using the group codification under the definition • Mutation operator: Its function is producing a variation
of [17]. Here, every feasible connection between loads of the pseudo chromosome characteristics.
and phases for every k node, given by each element of • Keeping elitism operator: The aim of this operator is
the S3 group, can be formulated as an homorphism given keeping the good solutions. The most well known way
by the following matrix representation: to do this is preserving the best solution so far passing
from the current generation to the next. Here, the best
S (k) = Rα(k) · P β(k) · S̃ (k) , ∀ k ∈ L (9) solution is represented by a chromosome which includes
α
Where matrices R and P β
are shown in (10) and (11), all nodes represented by an α − β combination.
respectively. ⎛ ⎞α The steps of the algorithm are summarized as follows:
0 1 0
Rα = ⎝0 0 1⎠ (10) Algorithm 1 Genetic Algorithm for Phase-Balancing
1 0 0 1: procedure G ENETIC (Feeder)
⎛ ⎞β 2: i←0  generation counter
0 1 0 3: ρ ← Rand(Ω)  Initialize population randomly
P β = ⎝1 0 0⎠ (11) 4: f ← PL (ρ)  Evaluate objective function
0 0 1 5: fopt , ρopt ← Best(f )
The S3 group elements will be represented by tensor M 6: while i ≤ Number of generations do
for every feasible combination between α and β, where 7: ∂ρ ← Tournament(ρ)  Selection
α = {0, 1, 2} and β = {0, 1}. Then, equality (12) can be 8: ρ ← Crossover(∂ρ, Ω)
formulated for every node k. 9: ρ ← Mutation(ρ, Ω)
10: f ← PL (ρ)
M (k) = Rα(k) · P β(k) (12) 11: fopt , ρopt ← Best(f )
12: ρ ← Variation(ρ)
Furthermore, Figure 2 depicts every feasible connection 13: ρ ← Elitism(ρ)
represented by a group element as a result of the combi- 14: f ← PL (ρ)
nation between α and β in (12). 15: fopt , ρopt ← Best(f )
16: return fopt , ρopt  Optimal solution
α

x1 y2 The algorithm is basically the same when the subgroup Γ

2
is used instead Ω.
x2 y1
1 IV. R ESULTS

e y3 To investigate the efficiency of the proposed method, the

0 1 β previously formulated genetic algorithm with a group theory
Fig. 2. Group elements represented for every feasible α − β combination
In the same way, the crossover and mutation operators are
defined by the elements of the S3 group, which implies
that every offspring belongs to the aforementioned group
and those operators are closed under the binary operation
defined by the symbol ◦.
• Crossover operator: This operator takes two individuals
from the population to create new offspring. A crossover
example of a 5 nodes system is shown in Fig 3.
codification was carried out several times for A. IEEE 13, B.
IEEE 37 and C. IEEE 123 test feeders to ensure consistency.
Then, the number of iterations and the time to find the best
approximation may vary every time the algorithm is carried
out. All parameters of these feeders can be consulted in [18].
Each individual of the initial population represents every α−β
combination for each node. The final result shows the optimal
α−β combination including all electric variables that produces
the least value of losses. Additionally, unbalance indices for
line currents in every k node for all study cases can be
calculated following (13):

,(((0LODQ3RZHU7HFK
 TABLE III
  IEEE 37 TEST FEEDER R ESULTS
|Iak − Imk | |Ibk − Imk | |Ick − Imk |
ξk = max , , (13) Result Unit Value
i |Imk | |Imk | |Imk | Unbalanced System Losses kW 33.0098681277656
Balanced System Losses balancing kW 29.6749960361855
with Total reduction % 10.1026519665951
Iterations to find the best approximation n 9601
Time to find the best approximation s 492.7682456905319
I a k + I bk + I c k
I mk = (14)
3

Unbalance index reduction (Δξ)

1
Here, Iak , Ibk and Ick correspond to the line current at each
phase on node k, while Imk in (14) represents the mean value
for the line current also at node k. Note that for balanced
conditions the value of ξ must be zero, i.e. the line currents 0.5
are all equal to the mean value.

A. IEEE 13 Nodes test Feeder 0

The IEEE 13 Nodes test feeder is a very small circuit, highly 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

loaded at 7 of his 13 buses. Despite this being a very small Node
grid, the phase balancing produces a considerable reduction of
Fig. 5. Unbalance indices IEEE 37 nodes test feeder
losses. Table II presents the principal results of the algorithm
as well as the total execution time. Figure 4 illustrates the
reduction of the unbalance indices in all terminals. C. IEEE 123 Nodes test Feeder
With loads in 89 out of his 123 nodes, IEEE 123 nodes test
TABLE II feeder provides a structural diversity as it includes overhead
IEEE 13 TEST FEEDER R ESULTS
and underground lines, unbalance loading with constant cur-
Result Unit Value rent, impedance and power, four voltage regulators and shunt
Unbalanced System Losses kW 108.3465147031069 capacitor banks. Table IV shows the numerical results after
Balanced System Losses kW 93.8867953026757
Total reduction % 13.3458094522504 the implementation of the genetic algorithm based on a group
Iterations to find the best approximation n 3151 theory codification. Equally, Figure 6 shows the unbalance
Time to find the best approximation s 55.9764426498159 indices reduction.

TABLE IV
IEEE 123 TEST FEEDER R ESULTS
Unbalance index reduction (Δξ)

Results Unit Value

0 Unbalanced System Losses kW 92.8691765270531
Balanced System Losses kW 86.0034328873661
Total reduction % 7.3929196924525
−0.5 Iterations to find the best approximation n 8487
Time to find the best approximation s 1422.325992532101
−1
Unbalance index reduction (Δξ)

−1.5 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Node
1
Fig. 4. Unbalance indices IEEE 13 nodes test feeder

B. IEEE 37 Nodes test Feeder

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
IEEE 37 Nodes test feeder represents a real feeder placed in Node
California. It has an operating voltage of 4.8kV, all line seg-
ments are underground, and its substation voltage regulation Fig. 6. Unbalance indices IEEE 123 nodes test feeder
is two single-phase open-delta regulators, spot loads in 25 of
its 37 nodes and very unbalanced. Table III shows the main For all results, the unbalance indices were considerably
numerical results and Figure 5 the unbalance indices reduction. reduced (positive values) despite minimal unbalance being

,(((0LODQ3RZHU7HFK
added in some terminals (negative values). In Figures 4, 5
and 6 it can be seen that the algorithm unbalances some
nodes while balancing others. This behavior makes sense if
we consider that some loads are smaller in comparison to
others. Then, the algorithm tends to balance the nodes with
larger loads in order to reduce power losses even though some
nodes with smaller loads can be unbalanced. Nodes with a
reduction value of zero represent nodes that have single-phase,
two phase-loads or even terminals without loads.
V. C OMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMIZATION IN Ω AND Γ
As aforementioned, the proposed method is general for any
type of feeders. However, industrial feeders have an additional
constraint related to the change of sequence on the loads. The
resulting group in this case is a symmetric-Abelian subgroup
that reduces the space of solution. In order to see the effect
of the algorithm in this type of group, the simulations were
performed again with the results presented in Table V.
TABLE V
C OMPARISON ON THE PHASE - BALANCING PROBLEM IN THE THREE - PHASE
GROUP AND THE THREE - PHASE SUBGROUP FOR INDUSTRIAL FEEDERS
Solution Space Feeder Reduction[%] Iterations
IEEE 13 13.3458 1494
Ω IEEE 37 10.1026 9601
IEEE 123 7.3929 8487
IEEE 13 11.7830 1143
Γ IEEE 37 9.8908 5525
IEEE 123 7.2785 8823
Notice that the algorithm optimizing in Ω increases losses
reduction by comparison to the algorithm in Γ. This is because
the size of the feasible solution space of the group Ω is wider,
which also implies that the algorithm moving in the subgroup
Γ requires less iterations and CPU time. It is not difficult to
see from results of Table V that group theory reduces the space
of solution in comparison to the conventional approach using
indicator functions.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
A general methodology for phase-balancing in power dis-
tribution networks was presented. This methodology uses
group theory as a main tool for codification of the meta-
heuristic algorithm. A modified genetic algorithm is proposed
although the group codification can be extended for any type
of algorithm. The group representation allows to move from
feasible to feasible solution without using indicator functions
or penalization barriers as the conventional approach. Opera-
tors such as crossover and mutation are easily codified by this
representation without major changes.
In addition, a direct method for including industrial feeders
was proposed. In these feeders, it is required to avoid changes
on the sequence. A subgroup representation is obtained in this
case with additional properties such as the commutative of the
binary operator. The algorithm demonstrated to be efficient in
small and large distribution feeders. The commutative property
of the three-phase subgroup seems to affect positively the
convergence of the algorithm. More research is required in
,(((0LODQ3RZHU7HFK
View publication stats
order to identify this property in depth. A real reduction of
the solution space size was carried out, which is not possible
when an indicator function is used, since its unique function
is penalizing some zones of the solution space.
There are many paths for this research. The phase-balancing
problem can be described in terms of finite-semigroups and in
particular in terms of Monoids since the inverse operation is
not really used in the genetic algorithm. Other methodologies
such as particle swarm optimization can be tested with the
group approach. Finally, it is required to include some stochas-
tic effect on the grid in order to improve the modeling of
renewable resources such as wind and solar. These resources
can be included effortlessly in the model but its stochastic
model requires a particular type of codification in order to
maintain its group structure.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Zhu, G. Bilbro, and M.-Y. Chow, “Phase balancing using simulated
annealing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
1508–1513, Nov 1999.
[2] J. Zhu, M.-Y. Chow, and F. Zhang, “Phase balancing using mixed-integer
programming [distribution feeders],” IEEE Transactions on Power Sys-
tems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1487–1492, Nov 1998.
[3] S. Soltani, M. Rashidinejad, and A. Abdollahi, “Stochastic multiobjec-
Time[s] tive distribution systems phase balancing considering distributed energy
33.0036 resources,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–12, 2017.
492.7682 [4] H. A. Mostafa, R. El-Shatshat, and M. M. A. Salama, “Multi-objective
1422.325 optimization for the operation of an electric distribution system with a
20.4441 large number of single phase solar generators,” IEEE Transactions on
301.5133 Smart grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1038 – 1047, June 2013.
1333.903 [5] S. Weckx and J. Driesen, “Load balancing with ev chargers and
pv inverters in unbalanced distribution grids,” IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 635–643, April 2015.
[6] M. Terorde, H. Wattar, and D. Schulz, “Phase balancing for aircraft
electrical distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1781–1792, July 2015.
[7] X. Feng, K. L. Butler-Purry, and T. Zourntos, “A multi-agent system
framework for real-time electric load management in mvac all-electric
ship power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30,
no. 3, pp. 1327 – 1336, May 2015.
[8] S. Soltani, M. Rashidinejad, and A. A. , “Dynamic phase balancing in
the smart distribution networks,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems,
vol. 93, pp. 374–383, December 2017.
[9] R. Hooshmand and S. Soltani, “Simultaneous optimization of phase
balancing and reconfiguration in distribution networks using bfnm
algorithm,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 41, pp. 76–86,
October 2012.
[10] A. Garces, W. Gil-Gonzlez, J. Castao, and O. D. Montoya, “Group-
theory for the analysis of heuristic algorithms in power distribution
systems,” in 2018 IEEE PES Transmission Distribution Conference and
Exhibition - Latin America (T D-LA), Sept 2018, pp. 1–5.
[11] G. Schweickardt, J. M. G. Alvarez, and C. Casanova, “Metaheuristics
approaches to solve combinatorial optimization problems in distribution
power systems. an application to phase balancing in low voltage three-
phase networks,” Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 76, pp.
1–10, March 2016.
[12] B. C. Benjamin Baumslag, Theory and problems of group theory.
McGraw-hill books, 1968.
[13] M. Artin, Algebra. Pearson; 1 edition (April 24 1991), 1991.
[14] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine
Learning. Adisson-Wesley publishing company, 1989.
[15] D. Kalyanmoy, Multi-Objective Optimization suing Evolutionary Algo-
rithms. John Wiley Sons, 2001.
[16] E. K. Burke, Search methodologies, introductory tutorials in optimiza-
tion and decision support techniques. Springer, 2005.
[17] M. Armstrong, Groups and Symmetry. Springer, 1988.
[18] W. H. Kersting, “Radial distribution test feeders,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 975–985, Aug 1991.