Disparity line utilization factor based optimal placement of IPFC for congestion management

POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE Disparity Line Utilization Factor Based Optimal Placement of IPFC for Congestion Management Akanksha MISHRA, Gundavarapu Venkata Nagesh KUMAR Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management Institute of Technology, Gandhi Nagar, Rushikonda, 530045 Visakhapatnam, India misak[email protected], [email protected] DOI: 10.15598/aeee.v14i2.1546 Abstract. Recently, due to the adoption of power reforms, there is a marked increase of contracted power that flows in the transmission line and also the spontaneous power exchanges leading to complex power transmission congestion problems. The appearance of Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) devices specifically Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC) has opened up new opportunities to overcome the congestion problem by increasing the possible system load. Hence, the optimal placement of FACTS devices is deservedly an issue of great importance. This paper proposes a Disparity Line Utilization Factor (DLUF) for the optimal placement of IPFC to control the congestion in transmission lines. DLUF determines the difference between the percentage MVA utilization of each line connected to the same bus. The proposed method is implemented for IEEE–14 and IEEE-57 bus test system. The IPFC is placed in all possible line combinations of IEEE-14 bus system to check the validity of the proposed methodology. To confirm the generality of the proposed method, the technique is also implemented and verified for IEEE-57 bus test system. An increased load of 110 %and 125 %is applied, and the results are presented and analysed in detail to establish the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. Keywords Congestion, interline power flow controller, line utilization factor, optimal placement. 1. Introduction Lately, the deregulated electric power industries have changed the way of operation, structure, ownership and management of the utilities. There is a huge enhancement of spontaneous power exchanges. More power is scheduled or flows across the transmission lines and transformers than the physical limits of those lines, which is the primary cause of congestion in transmission lines [1]. In the new competitive electric market, it is now mandatory for the electric utilities to operate such that it makes better utilization of the existing transmission facilities. It is, therefore, necessary to improve power delivery of system by reducing power loss in the interconnected electric power system. Many attempts have been made by researchers recently to improve the power transfer capability of the existing network [2], [3]. The concept of Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) devices was introduced by Hingorani [4] and they have been found very successful in solving various power system issues [5]. Several authors [6], [7] have proposed a sensitivity based approach for optimizing the location of FACTS devices for congestion management by controlling the device parameters. Kumar et al. [8] have used a sensitivity based approach for zonal/cluster-based congestion management. Acharya et al. [9] have proposed two new methodologies for the placement of series FACTS devices for congestion management. The overall objective of FACTS device placement can be minimization of the total congestion rent or maximization of social welfare. Samimi et al. [10] have proposed a method to determine optimal location and best setting of Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC). Seeking the best place is performed using the sensitivity analysis and optimum setting of TCSC is managed using the genetic algorithm. Yousufi et al. [11] have proposed a combination of Demand Response (DR) and Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System (FACTS) devices for congestion management. Esmaili et al. [12] have proposed optimization of total operating cost, voltage and transient stability margins for c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 104 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE optimal placement and sizing of FACTS devices for congestion management. Hooshmand et al. [13] considered non-smooth fuel cost-function and penalty cost of emission for optimal placement of TCSC to manage congestion. Esmaili et al. [14] have used Real Power Performance Index (RPPI) and reduction of total system VAR power losses for optimal placement of TCSC. Ushasurendra et al. [15] have proposed Line Utilization Factor (LUF) for optimal placement of FACTS devices for congestion management. RPPI is based only on the real power flowing through a line, whereas, LUF takes into consideration the apparent power that flows in the line. Hence, LUF is chosen for the study. Line Utilization Factor has been used for the determination of congestion of a single transmission line. FACTS devices are placed on the transmission line with maximum LUF value. However, IPFC is a multiline series FACTS device [16]. In its simplest form it consists of at least two converters required to be placed on two transmission lines with a common bus. The 1st converter of IPFC can be placed on the line with maximum LUF. But the placement of the other converter is an issue which becomes more and more complex with the increase in the size of the system, number of IPFC’s and the complexity of IPFC. Hence, LUF is not a sufficient index for obtaining the location for placement of IPFC. In this paper, the difference of Line Utilization Factors between two lines has been used for determination of the optimal location of IPFC. The IPFC is placed in the lines with a maximum value of DLUF to reduce congestion. The effect of IPFC placement on the active and reactive power of the power system is also studied under different loading conditions. The proposed method is implemented and tested on IEEE-14 and IEEE-57 bus system for different loading conditions. 2. Modelling of IPFC An IPFC consists of at least two back to back DC-AC converters connected by a common DC link [17], [18]. Vi,Vj,Vkare complex voltages at bus-i,j, krespectively. Vl=VlxΘl(l=i,j,k) and Vl,Θlare the magnitude and angle of Vl.V sein is the complex controllable, series injected voltage source. It shows the series compensation of the series converter. V sein is given by V sein =V seinxΘsein (n=j,k). V sein and Θsein are the magnitude and angle of V sein. The basic model of IPFC, as shown in Fig. 1 consisting of three buses-i,jand k. Two transmission lines are connected with the bus-iin common. The equivalent circuit of the IPFC with two converters is represented in Fig. 2. Zsein is the series transformer impedance. P sein is the active power exchange of each converter via the common DC link. Piand, Qias given in equaVCS2 Vseik Vj Vk Vseij VCS1 Vi Fig. 1: Basic model of IPFC. tions Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) are the sum of the active and reactive power flows leaving the bus-i. The IPFC branch active and reactive power flows leaving bus-n are Pni and Qni and the expressions are given in equation Eq. (3) and Eq. (4). Iji,Iki are the IPFC branch currents of branch j−iand k−ileaving bus-jand k, respectively. In Eq. (1), Eq. (2), Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) are: •n=j, k, •gin +jbin =1 zsein =ysein, •gnn +jbnn =1 zsein =ysein, •gii =P n=j,k gin, •bii =P n=j,k bin. Vseik Vj Vk Vsejk zseij zseik Iki Iji Pki+jQki Pji+jQji Re(VseijIji -+VseikIki -)=0 SS +- +- ViPi+jQi Fig. 2: Equivalent circuit of IPFC. c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 105 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE Pi=V2 ibii −X n ViVn[gin cos (Θi−Θn) + bin sin (Θi−Θn)] −P n ViV sein [gin cos (Θi−Θsein) + bin sin (Θi−Θsein)] . (1) Qi=−V2 ibii −X n=j,k ViVn[gin sin (Θi−Θn)−bin cos (Θi−Θn)] −P n=j,k ViV sein [gin sin (Θi−Θsein)−bin cos (Θi−Θsein)] . (2) Pni =V2 ngnm −ViVn[gin cos (Θn−Θi) + bin sin (Θn−Θi)] +VnV sein [gin sin (Θn−Θsein)−bin cos (Θn−Θsein)] .(3) Qni =−V2 nbnm −ViVn[gin sin (Θn−Θi)−bin cos (Θn−Θi)] +VnV sein [gin sin (Θn−Θsein)−bin cos (Θn−Θsein)] .(4) Assuming lossless converter, the active power supplied by one converter equals to the active power demanded by the other, if there are no underlying storage systems: Re V seij I∗ ji +V seikI∗ ki= 0,(5) where the superscript ∗denotes the complex conjugate. 3. Disparity Line Utilization Factor Line Utilization Factor is an index used for determining the congestion of the transmission lines. It is given by Eq. (6): LUFij =MV Aij MV Aij max ,(6) where LUFij - Line Utilization Factor (LUF) of the line connected to bus-iand bus-j,MV Aij max - Maximum MVA rating of the line between bus-iand bus-j. MV Aij - Actual MVA rating of the line between bus-i and bus-j. LUF gives an estimate of the percentage of line being utilized and is an efficient method to estimate the congestion in a line. For placement of IPFC, there should be at least two lines connected to a common bus. Therefore, LUF is not sufficient for placement of IPFC. Taking into consideration the fact that IPFC can directly transfer real power via the common DC link, it has the capability to transfer power demand from overloaded to under-loaded lines. Hence, a new index Disparity Line Utilization Factor is hereby proposed for the optimal placement of an IPFC. DLUF indicates the difference between the utilization of the lines. It gives an estimate of the difference of the percentage of line being used for the power flow. All the lines are first ranked in descending order of their line utilization factors. The line which has the first rank is considered to be the most congested line. DLUF is calculated for all the lines connected to the line with highest congestion. All the line pairs connected to the same bus are ranked on the basis of DLUF. The line set that has highest value of DLUF is considered to be the optimal location of IPFC for Congestion Management. Assuming both lines of same rating: DLUF(ij)−(ik)=    MV Aij −MV Aik MAVmax     ,(7) where DLUF(ij)−(ik)- Disparity Line Utilization Factor (DLUF) of the line set ij and ik,MV Aij -MV A rating ofthe line between bus-iand bus-j,MV Amax - maximum MV A rating of line, MV Aik - actual MV A rating of the line between bus-i and bus-k. Step by Step Procedure: •STEP I – Read the line data and bus data. •STEP II – Calculate the power flow and LUF of all lines •STEP III – Calculate the DLUF values for all lines in pair wit the lines ranking highest in congestion. •STEP IV – Place IPFC on the lines having highest value of DLUF. c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 106 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE Tab. 1: DLUF value calculation for line 4-5 of 14 bus test system. Case Line 1, SB No., RB No. Line 2, SB No., RB No. LUF Line1 LUF Line 2 DLUF LUF of Line 1 with IPFC 1 4-5 4-7 0.5951 0.2851 0.1313 0.8374 2 4-5 4-9 0.5951 0.1849 0.3511 0.8370 •STEP V – Perform the load flow analysis and calculate the LUF of all lines. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. IEEE-14 Bus System An IEEE-14 bus test system has 4 generator buses, 9 load buses and 20 transmission lines. Bus 1 is the slack bus. Bus number 2, 3, 6, 8 are the generator buses as shown in Fig. 3. The remaining buses are the load buses. System base MVA is 100. An IPFC consisting of two converters has been used in the study. The inductive reactance and resistance of the coupling transformers are assumed to be 0.001 p.u. The voltage magnitude of the two converters of the IPFC is taken in the range 0 ≤Vse ≤0.1and the angle is taken in the range −Π≤Θse ≤Π. Only load buses have been considered for IPFC placement. bus 2 bus 5 bus 6bus 1 bus 12 bus 11 bus 10 bus 14 bus 13 bus 4 bus 7 bus 3 bus 8 I5th IPFC bus 9 G G G I5th Fig. 3: IEEE-14 bus test system with IPFC installed at line connected between buses 4–5 and 4–9. Table 2 displays the LUF values of all lines without IPFC and with IPFC. It is observed that the line connected between buses 4 and 5, with highest value of LUF is the most congested line. The line connected between buses 4–7 and buses 4–9 have been connected to the line 4-5 through a common bus. In Tab. 1 the value of DLUF has been calculated for the two possible Tab. 2: LUF values of all lines without and with IPFC. From Bus To Bus LUF without IPFC LUF with IPFC at proposed location 2 5 0.4601 0.4417 3 4 0.3001 0.2623 4 5 0.5951 0.5787 4 7 0.2851 0.2802 4 9 0.1849 0.1598 5 6 0.5338 0.5713 6 11 0.2661 0.2908 6 12 0.2562 0.257 6 13 0.7323 0.7380 7 8 0.3724 0.4481 7 9 0.4853 0.4729 9 10 0.0763 0.0925 9 14 0.3556 0.3331 10 11 0.1326 0.1550 12 13 0.1159 0.1184 13 14 0.2405 0.2546 options of IPFC placement. It is observed from Tab. 1 that the line pair (4–5) and (4–9) have the maximum value of DLUF. Hence, the IPFC is proposed to be located at line 4–5 and 4–9. In order to prove that the proposed location is the best location for the placement of IPFC, the device is placed in all possible locations of the transmission system and the results have been presented in Tab. 3. It is observed from Tab. 3 and Fig. 4 that congestion in the line 4–5 is reduced most effectively when IPFC is placed on line 4–5 and 4–9 which is the location being proposed for optimal placement. Thus, it is verified that for reduction of congestion, the 1st converter of IPFC has to be placed on the most congested line (maximum LUF) while the 2nd converter has to be placed on the line that has maximum DLUF value with respect to the 1st line. The active power loss is also reduced at this location, although it may Tab. 3: Placement of IPFC at all possible locations in the IEEE-14 bus test system. S. No. Location of IPFC on Line Pair LUF of line 7 Total Active power loss 1. 7, 8 0.5820 22.313 2. 7, 9 0.5787 20.140 3. 8, 9 0.5980 22.368 4. 9, 16 0.8020 20.376 5. 9, 17 0.8020 20.383 6. 15, 16 0.8030 21.923 7. 15, 17 0.8030 21.929 8. 16, 18 0.7690 22.540 9. 17, 20 0.8050 21.929 10. 19, 20 0.8400 21.539 c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 107 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE 7, 8 7, 9 8, 9 9, 16 9, 17 15, 1615, 17 16,18 17, 2019, 20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Line connected between buses LUF (P.U.) Fig. 4: LUF of line connected between buses 4–5 after placement of IPFC at all feasible locations of IEEE-14 bus test system. 7, 8 7, 9 8, 9 9, 16 9, 17 15, 1615, 17 16,18 17, 2019, 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 Line connected between buses Total Active Power Loss (MW) Fig. 5: Active power loss in IEEE-14 bus system after placement of IPFC at all feassible locations. not achieve its minimum value as observed from Fig. 5. The next best location for IPFC placement, in terms of reduction of congestion, is line 4–5 and 4–7 where the value of DLUF is smaller in comparison to the proposed location. Next, the load on the transmission system has been increased by 10 %and 25 %and the results have been presented in Tab. 4. It shows the improvement in active and reactive power loss with placement of IPFC at the proposed location at both normal and increased loading condition. The total active and reactive power loss for different loading conditions have been shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively. Tab. 4: Active power loss and reactive power loss without and with optimally placed IPFC for normal, 110 %and 125 %loading condition. Loading cond. Real power loss Reactive power loss Without IPFC With IPFC Without IPFC With IPFC Normal 22.545 20.140 82.171 81.171 110 %26.313 23.533 97.658 95.650 125 %32.828 29.385 124.490 119.850 4.2. IEEE-57 Bus System From the results obtained for IEEE-14 bus system, it is clear that the 1st converter of the IPFC has to be placed on the most congested line while the location of the 2nd Normal 110 % 125 % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Loading Condition Total Active Power Loss (MW) Without IPFC With IPFC Fig. 6: Real power loss without and with IPFC for normal, 110 %and 125 %load. Normal 110 % 125 % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Loading Condition Reactive Power Loss (MW) Without IPFC With IPFC Fig. 7: Reactive power loss without and with IPFC for normal, 110 %and 125 %. converter of the IPFC should be on the line with maximum DLUF with respect to the most congested line to obtain maximum LUF reduction. In order to confirm the validity and generality of the proposed method, the concept of optimal placement of IPFC using DLUF is verified again for an IEEE-57 bus test system. An IEEE-57 bus test system is considered. In an IEEE-57 bus system bus no. 1 is considered as a slack bus and bus nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12 are considered as PV buses while all other buses are load buses. This system has 80 interconnected lines as shown in Fig. 8. LUF values of all the lines without and with Optimal placement of IPFC has been presented in Tab. 5. It is established that line connected between buses 14–46 (line 59) is the most congested line. All possible DLUF index calculations for line 14–46 have been shown in Tab. 6 as test cases. It is observed from Tab. 5, line 14–46 is the most congested line connected to load bus. In the 57 bus system, three lines have been connected to line 59. So, three test cases for IPFC placement have been considered, as shown in Tab. 6 DLUF has been calculated for each test case and it is observed that congestion in line 14–46 is reduced most when the line-2 used for IPFC placement is Line 13–14 where the DLUF value is maximum. Hence, lines 14–46 and 13–14 have been selected for optimal placement of IPFC. It is observed from Tab. 6 that placement of IPFC at the location where DLUF is maximum causes a maximum reduction in congestion in line 14–46. It is observed from Fig. 9 that optimal placement of IPFC reduces congestion in line 14–46 (line no. 59) c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 108 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE 626 27 28 29 7 24 25 22 23 II 30 52 53 54 55 31 34 35 33 50 32 11 51 43 10 41 9 40 42 56 57 39 47 37 38 48 49 20 21 12 13 14 46 44 45 16 17 12 3 4 5 18 19 II 8 IPFC Fig. 8: IEEE-57 Bus test system with IPFC installed at line connected between buses 14–46 and 13–14. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Line Number LUF Value (p.u.) LUF without IPFC LUF with IPFC Fig. 9: Comparison of LUF values with and without IPFC with normal load. and in the other lines in the system. Fig. 10 shows a marked improvement in voltage profile of the buses. It is observed from Tab. 7 that after the placement of IPFC using DLUF, line losses are considerably reduced. 10 20 30 40 50 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Bus Number Voltage Magnitude (p.u.) With IPFC Without IPFC Fig. 10: Voltage profile without and with IPFC. Simulation has been performed for 110 %and 125 % load on IEEE-14 and 57 bus test system. It is observed Normal 110 % 125 % 0 20 40 60 80 100 Loading Total Active Power Loss (MW) Without IPFC With IPFC Fig. 11: Real power loss without and with IPFC for normal, 110 %and 125 %load. from Tab. 7 and Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 that with increase in load the total real and reactive power loss increases. Placement of IPFC by the proposed method seems to be an effective method for reduction of the above parameters even in increased loading condition. Normal 110 % 125 % 0 100 200 300 400 Loading Total Reactive Power Loss (MVAR) Without IPFC With IPFC Fig. 12: Reactive power loss without and with IPFC for normal, 110 %and 125 %load. 5. Conclusions In this paper, a Disparity Line Utilization Factor for the optimal placement of IPFC for congestion management has been implemented. The IPFC is being placed in the lines with highest DLUF value. It has been established that placement of IPFC using DLUF effectively reduces line congestion and active and reactive power loss simultaneously. The proposed method has been verified and implemented for IEEE-14 and IEEE-57 bus test system using MATLAB Software. It is observed that the placement of IPFC by the proposed methodology causes an effective reduction in congestion in the lines. The result of LUF value before and after placement of IPFC shows reduction of loading in congested line. Comparison of results with other locations ensures that placement of IPFC at the proposed location is a healthy location for the placement of IPFC in terms of reduction of congestion. A reduction in Real and reactive power loss has also been observed. Hence, the overall system performance has been studied under different loading conditions and the results are found to be favourable. c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 109 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE Tab. 5: Comparison of LUF values of all lines of 57 bus test system without and with optimally placed IPFC. Line No. From Bus, (SB No.) To Bus, (RB No.) LUF without IPFC LUF with opt Placed IPFC Line No. From Bus, (SB No.) To Bus, (RB No.) LUF without IPFC LUF with opt Placed IPFC 1. 1 2 2.2141 1.360 41. 7 29 0.6102 0.639 2. 2 3 1.0286 1.047 42. 25 30 0.0840 0.083 3. 3 4 0.6947 0.693 43. 30 31 0.0415 0.041 4. 4 5 0.3229 0.322 44 31 32 0.0257 0.026 5. 4 6 0.2115 0.214 45. 32 33 0.0430 0.043 6. 6 7 0.2522 0.164 46. 34 32 0.0834 0.094 7. 6 8 0.5275 0.427 47. 34 35 0.0913 0.093 8. 8 9 1.8483 1.830 48. 35 36 0.1591 0.159 9. 9 10 0.1792 0.186 49. 36 37 0.2597 0.193 10. 9 11 0.1904 0.164 50. 37 38 0.3742 0.235 11. 9 12 0.1205 0.050 51. 37 39 0.0395 0.041 12. 9 13 0.0897 0.046 52. 36 40 0.0389 0.035 13. 13 14 0.3954 0.415 53. 22 38 0.1433 0.157 14. 13 15 0.5226 0.624 54. 11 41 0.0930 0.109 15. 1 15 1.7232 1.585 55. 41 42 0.1034 0.104 16. 1 16 0.8385 0.834 56. 41 43 0.1302 0.133 17. 1 17 0.9834 0.950 57. 38 44 0.2488 0.241 18. 3 15 0.5463 0.382 58. 15 45 0.5156 0.381 19. 4 18 0.3160 0.344 59. 14 46 1.2301 0.053 20. 4 18 0.3160 0.344 60. 46 47 0.6038 0.636 21. 5 6 0.8674 0.852 61. 47 48 0.2786 0.316 22. 7 8 0.9475 0.787 62. 48 49 0.1220 0.119 23. 10 12 0.2954 0.168 63. 49 50 0.0755 0.123 24. 11 13 0.1092 0.091 64. 50 51 0.1785 0.120 25. 12 13 0.8694 0.169 65. 10 51 0.9562 0.312 26. 12 16 0.3787 0.358 66. 13 49 0.3884 0.293 27. 12 17 0.5314 0.477 67. 29 52 0.2874 0.202 28. 14 15 0.6985 0.629 68. 52 53 0.1184 0.14 29. 18 19 0.0391 0.040 69. 53 54 0.1310 0.097 30. 19 20 0.0079 0.006 70. 54 55 0.2471 0.141 31. 21 20 0.0655 0.200 71. 11 43 0.2405 0.162 32. 21 22 0.0249 0.200 72. 44 45 0.3737 0.362 33. 22 23 0.1188 0.138 73. 40 56 0.0415 0.035 34. 23 24 0.0565 0.078 74. 56 41 0.0595 0.061 35. 24 25 0.1653 0.165 75. 56 42 0.0148 0.017 36. 24 25 0.1653 0.165 76. 39 57 0.0376 0.041 37. 24 26 0.6851 0.089 77. 57 56 0.0320 0.030 38. 26 27 0.1095 0.089 78. 38 49 0.1835 0.054 39. 27 28 0.2021 0.183 79. 38 48 0.3734 0.298 40. 28 29 0.2578 0.237 80. 9 55 0.3367 0.227 Tab. 6: DLUF value calculation for line 14–46 of 57 bus test system. Case Line 1 SB No. RB No. Line 2 SB No. RB No. LUF Line 1 LUF Line 2 DLUF LUF Of Line 1 with IPFC 1 14–46 46–47 1.230 0.603 0.627 0.166 2 14–46 14–15 1.230 0.698 0.532 0.160 3 14–46 13–14 1.230 0.395 0.834 0.053 Tab. 7: Active power loss and reactive power loss without and with optimally placed IPFC for normal, 110 % and 125 % loading condition. Loading condition Real power loss Reactive power loss Without IPFC With IPFC Without IPFC With IPFC Normal 42.258 38.110 166.112 146.724 110 % 59.989 58.736 231.139 215.918 125 % 99.721 95.216 375.397 353.829 c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 110 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE References [1] KUMAR, A., S. C. SRIVASTAVA and S. N. SINGH. Congestion management in competitive power market: A bibliographical survey. Electric Power Systems Research. 2005, vol. 76, iss. 1–3, pp. 153–164. ISSN 0378-7796. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsr.2005.05.001. [2] NASRI, A. and B. GASBAOUI. Novel Power Flow Problem Solutions Method’s Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimization for Banks Capacitor Compensation Using an Fuzzy Logic Rule Bases for Critical Nodal Detections. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 2011, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 150–156. ISSN 1336-1376. DOI: 10.15598/aeee.v9i4.548. [3] SALHI, A., D. NAIMI and T. BOUKTIR. Fuzzy Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Genetic Algorithms Applied to Algerian Electrical Network. Power Engineering and Electrical Engineering. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 2013, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 443–454. ISSN 1336-1376. DOI: 10.15598/aeee.v11i6.832. [4] HINGORANI, N. G. Fuzzy Multi-Objective Optimal Power Flow Using Genetic Algorithms Applied to Algerian Electrical Network. Power Engineering and Electrical Engineering. IEEE Power Engineering Review. 1988, vol. 8, iss. 7, pp. 3–4. ISSN 0272-1724. DOI: 10.1109/MPER.1988.590799. [5] BHATTACHARYYA, B., V. K. GUPTA and S. KUMAR. Reactive Power Optimization with SVC &TCSC using Genetic Algorithm. Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 2014, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–12. ISSN 1336-1376. DOI: 10.15598/aeee.v12i1.778. [6] SINGH, S. N. and A. K. DAVID. Optimal location of FACTS devices for congestion management. Electric Power Systems Research. 2001, vol. 58, iss. 2, pp. 71–79. ISSN 0378-7796. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7796(01)00087-6. [7] VERMA, K. S., S. N. SINGH and H. O. GUPTA. Location of unified power flow controller for congestion management. Electric Power Systems Research. 2001, vol. 58, iss. 2, pp. 89–96. ISSN 03787796. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7796(01)00123-7. [8] KUMAR, A., S. C. SRIVASTAVA and S. N. SINGH. A Zonal Congestion Management Approach Using Real and Reactive Power Rescheduling. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 2004, vol. 19, iss. 1, pp. 554–562. ISSN 0885-8950. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821448. [9] ACHARYA, N. and N. MITHULANANTHAN. Locating series FACTS devices for congestion management in deregulated electricity markets. Electric Power Systems Research. 2007, vol. 77, iss. 3–4, pp. 352–360. ISSN 0378-7796. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsr.2006.03.016. [10] BESHARAT, H. and S. A. TAHER. Congestion management by determining optimal location of TCSC in deregulated power systems. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems. 2008, vol. 30, iss. 10, pp. 563–568. ISSN 0142-0615. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2008.08.007. [11] MANDALA, M. and C. P. GUPTA. Congestion management by optimal placement of FACTS device. In: Joint International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems. New Delhi: IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–7. ISBN 978-1424477821. DOI: 10.1109/PEDES.2010.5712387. [12] SAMIMI, A. and P. NADERI. A New Method for Optimal Placement of TCSC Based on Sensitivity Analysis for Congestion Management. Smart Grid and Renewable Energy. 2012, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 10–16. ISSN 2151-481X. DOI: 10.4236/sgre.2012.31002. [13] YOUSEFI, A., T. T. NGUYEN, H. ZAREIPOUR and O. P. MALIK. Congestion management using demand response and FACTS devices. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems. 2012, vol. 37, iss. 1, pp. 78–85. ISSN 01420615. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.12.008. [14] ESMAILI, M., H. A. SHAYANFAR and R. MOSLEMI. Locating series FACTS devices for multi-objective congestion management improving voltage and transient stability. European Journal of Operational Research. 2014, vol. 236, iss. 2, pp. 763–773. ISSN 0377-2217. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.017. [15] USHASURENDRA, S. and S. PARATHASARTHY. Congestion management in deregulated power sector using fuzzy based optimal location technique for series flexible alternative current transmission system (FACTS) device. Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Research. 2012, vol. 4, iss. 1, pp. 12–20. ISSN 2141-2367 DOI: 10.5897/JEEER11.143. [16] HINGORANI, N. G. and L. GYUGYI. Understanding FACTS: Concepts and Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems. 1st ed. Piscataway: Wiley-IEEE Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0-78033455-7. DOI: 10.1002/9780470546802. c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 111 POWER ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME: 14 |NUMBER: 2 |2016 |JUNE [17] ZHANG, X. P. Modelling of the interline power flow controller and the generalised unified power flow controller in Newton power flow. Transmission and Distribution IEE Proceedings - Generation. 2003, vol. 150, iss. 3, pp. 268–274. ISSN 13502360. DOI: 10.1049/ip-gtd:20030093. [18] ACHA, E., C. R. FUERTE-ESQUIVEL, H. AMBRIZ-PEREZ and C. ANGELESCAMACHO. FACTS: Modelling and Simulation in Power Networks. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley &Sons, 2004. ISBN 978-0-470-85271-2. DOI: 10.1002/0470020164. About Authors Akanksha MISHRA was born in Cuttack, India, in 1982. She received her bachelor degree in electrical engineering from Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, India in 2004 and master’s degree in power electronics and drives in 2006 from the same institute. She is presently pursuing her Ph.D. from Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management, Visakhapatnam, India. Her research interests are FACTS devices, power electronics and power system stability. She has published several research papers in national and international conferences. Gundavarapu Venkata Nagesh KUMAR was born in Visakhapatnam, India in 1977. He received the B.E. degree from College of Engineering, Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM), Visakhapatnam, India and M.E. degree from the College of Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. He received his doctoral degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. He is also working as an Professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, GITAM University. His research interests include gas insulated substations, fuzzy logic, high voltage testing, and wavelets and FACTS devices. He has published research papers in national and international conferences and journals. c 2016 ADVANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING 112