September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.

00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63

Dr. N. Venkata Ramana and K. Chandrasekar, Member, IEEE
Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm to mitigate
the Composite Problem of Total Transfer
Capacity, Voltage Stability and Transmission
Loss Minimization
literature available it is understood that these problems are
treated and analyzed independently. Since the cost of FACTS
devices are very high, use of these devices for each problem
separately cannot be economically justified. It can be proved
these problems are interrelated and can be coupled as a
composite problem. For better control of power system and
for economic reasons, the problem of TTC must be coupled
and analyzed with other two related problems, namely voltage
stability enhancement and transmission line loss minimization.

AbstractEnhancement in total transfer capacity, Voltage
stability and minimization of transmission line losses are treated
as an interrelated, coupled composite problem. A multi-objective
genetic algorithm is presented to mitigate this multi-objective
and multi-criteria type composite problem. Simulation test is
carried on the standard IEEE WSCC 3-Generator, 9-Bus system.
The results indicate significant improvement in the three
problems as well as economical justification is achieved through
the application of the algorithm. The algorithm suggests using
both SVC and TCSC at their optimal locations has significant
impact in dealing the problem.
This paper presents a Multi-objective Genetic algorithm
(MOGA) for the placement of FACTS devices at their
optimum locations, through which the said composite problem
is solved. By including concerned equality/inequality
constraints, three different objective functions are defined for
the individual problems. The MOGA provides a single
solution which satisfies all the three objective functions
simultaneously.
Index Terms- Total Transfer Capacity, Multi-Objective
Genetic algorithm, TCSC, SVC, Repeated Power Flow.
I. INTRODUCTION
ccording to NERC report [1], Available Transfer
Capacity (ATC) is defined as Total Transfer Capacity
(TTC), less the transmission reliability margin, less the sum of
existing transmission commitments and capacity benefit
margin. Determination of TTC is the key component in ATC
calculation. TTC deals with the transfer of maximum possible
power flow in a transmission network subject to the
satisfaction of certain constraints like network thermal limits,
voltage limits etc. TTC is the operational characteristic of the
system which depends on the state of an area in the power
system from which the power is being transferred. TTC is
limited in the system due to the reasons: the power system
networks cannot share power according to their rating due to
different reactance values of the heavily loaded lines and in
most of the cases voltage profile cannot be smooth. It is well
known that the FACTS devices are capable of controlling
voltage magnitude, phase angle and circuit reactance. By
controlling these, we can redistribute the load flow and
regulate bus voltage. Therefore this method provides a
promising one to improve TTC [2]-[5].
A
The remaining paper is organized as follows: section II
deals with the problem formulation. Section III presents the
proposed MOGA and Simulation results are presented in
section IV. Finally conclusions are drawn in section V.
II. PROBLEMFORMULATION
This section presents an overview of FACTS devices
applications for controlling the said three problems,
mathematical model of these devices and the objective
functions for TTC, Voltage stability and Transmission loss
minimization. The steady state model of commercially
available FACTS devices Thyristor Controlled Series
Compensator (TCSC) and Static Var Compensator (SVC)
available in [10] is considered in this paper.
A. Application of FACTS Devices to the Composite Problem
TCSC is a series compensation device modeled to modify
the reactance of the transmission line directly and can
compensate lead/lag. The schematic representation and
variable reactance representation of TCSC [11] in a line
between nodes l and m are shown in Fig.1 and Fig.2
respectively. The TCSC varies the electrical length of the
transmission line.
In addition to the improvement in TTC, FACTS
devices can also be used for improving voltage stability [6]-
[7] and to minimize transmission losses [8]-[9]. Through the
Dr. N. Venkata Ramana (e-mail:nvrjntu @ yahoo.co.in ) is Professor in the
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, College of Engineering,
J.N.T. University , Kakinada, India.
The transfer power P
lm
as shown in Fig 2. between node l
and node m is given by
K.Chandrasekar (e-mail:chaandru_74 @ yahoo.co.in) is pursuing his
Ph.D. in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, College of
Engineering, J.N.T.University, Hyderabad, India. csc
V V
sin( )
( )
l m
lm l m
lm t
P
X X
6 6

(1)
670
978-1-4244-1726-1/07/$25.00 c 2007 IEEE
September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63
C
L
Thyristor
Pairs
node m
node l
X
lm
where is the voltage at node l Vl
is the voltage at node m Vm
lm X is the reactance of line
csc t X is the reactance of TCSC
l m 6 6 is the difference in voltage phase angles
Varying the firing angle of thyristor csc t X can be varied which
controls the transfer power in the line. From (1) we can
rewrite the expression for the receiving end voltage as
lm P
csc ( )
V
V sin( )
lm lm t
m
l l
P X X
m 6 6

(2)
which shows that by varying csc t X we can minimize the
variation in receiving end voltage and hence the possibility of
voltage collapse thus improving the voltage stability. Also the
line impedance in presence of TCSC depends on the total
reactance hence by varying csc ( lm t X X ) csc t X the total
transmission loss in the line can be controlled. Thus with the
presence of TCSC in a line it is evident that TTC, voltage
stability and transmission loss can be controlled. Therefore in
the steady state model, if the reactance of a transmission line
between buses l and m is represented by lm X then the
modified reactance of the transmission line in the presence of
TCSC is given by:
csc line lm t X X X (3)
where csc 0.5 0.5 lm t lm X X @ @ X (4)
SVC is a shunt connected variable reactance. It can also
compensate lead/lag. It consists of a TCR in parallel with a
bank of capacitors. The schematic diagram and its variable
susceptance representation for an SVC connected at a node l
are shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4 respectively [11]. By varying the
thyristor firing angle the susceptance of SCV, svc B can be
varied. Since ideal SVC is assumed to contain no resistive
component, that is G , it draws no active power but the
reactive power is given by:
0 svc
2
svc l svc Q V B (5)
When the transfer power in a line is increased it is limited by
bus voltage limits and/or line thermal limits. When we
incorporate SVC in a bus where voltage limits dominates then
by varying svc B voltage in the bus can be controlled as shown
in (5) thus improving the transfer power in a line. From (5) it
is also evident that varying svc B varies the injected reactive
compensation svc Q in a bus which controls the voltage and
hence improves voltage stability margin. The transmission
loss depends not only on the line parameters but also on the
voltage drop across the line. Hence by controlling voltage at a
bus the active and reactive line losses can also be controlled.
Therefore in the steady state model if an SVC is connected to
a particular bus l then the injected power at that bus is given
by
l sv Q Q c (6)
where 100 100 svc MVAR Q MVAR @ @ (7)
B. Total Transfer Capacity (TTC)
The mathematical formulation for TTC [12] is:
1
- - 0
n
Gi Di ij
j
P P Ploss

(8)
1
- -
n
Gi Di ij
j
Q Q Qloss

(9)
subject to min max i i i V V V @ @ (10)
max ij ij
S S @ (11)
where is the real power generation at bus i Gi P
Di P is the real load in bus i
is the active power loss in the line ij ij Ploss
Q is the reactive power generation at bus i Gi
Di Q is the reactive load in bus i
Ql is the reactive power loss in the line ij ij oss
3. Schematic diagram Fig 4. Variable susceptance
of SVC representation
V is the voltage at bus i i
V and V are the minimum and maximum min i max i
voltage limits at bus i
S is the apparent power flow in the line ij
ij
is the thermal limit of line ij
max ij
S
Fig
V
l
node l node l
I
SVC
B
SVC
Thyristor
Pairs
V
l
X
C
I
SVC
X
L
Fig 1. Schematic diagram of TCSC
node m
P
lm
node l
X
lm
X tcsc
Fig 2. Variable Reactance Representation of TCSC
2007 39
th
North American Power Symposium (NAPS 2007) 671
September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63
Repeated Power Flow (RPF) method [12] is used to compute
TTC because of its easy implementation and due to provision
of taking voltage stability into account. In RPF method, power
flow equations are solved repeatedly by increasing the
complex load with uniform power factor at every load bus in
the sink area and increasing the injected real power at
generator bus in the source area until limits are incurred.
Gi P (real power in source area), Di P (real power in sink area)
and Di Q (reactive power in sink area) is changed in the
following way.
0
(1 ) Gi Gi Gi P P K (12)
0
(1 ) Di Di Di P P K (13)
0
(1 ) Di Di Di Q Q K (14)
where
0
Gi P is the original real power generation at bus i in
source area.
0
Di P is the original active load in bus i in sink area.
0
Di Q is the original reactive load in bus i in sink area.
is the scalar parameter representing the increase
in bus load or generation. 0 correspond to no
transfer (base case) and max correspond to
maximum transfer.
Gi K , Di K constants used to specify the change rate in
generation and load respectively when varies.
The TTC level in (normal or contingency state) is given by:
0
( max)
sink sink
Di
i i
TTC P P



Di (15)
where
( max)
sink
Di
i
P

is the sum of load in sink area when max .

0
sink
Di
i
P

is the sum of load in sink area when 0 .

TTC is calculated using the following algorithm
Step 1: Locate FACTS devices and solve the base case
power flow (no transfer = 0).
Step 2: Using RPF method make a step increase in transfer
power.
Step 3: Solve power flow based on step 2.
Step 4: Check for any limit violation, if there is no violation
go to Step 3 else go to next step.
Step 5: Compute the TTC using (15) at maximum .
The TTC value which has been computed should be
maximized, hence the first objective function is
(16)
(1) f
(1) max( ) f T TC
C. Voltage Stability
The Voltage Stability margin is determined using the
Maximum Loadability Index (MLI) [13] which is given by:
2
2 2 2 2
2
([ ] [ ][ ])
i
j
ij ij ij ij ij ij ij ij
V
MLI
P r x Q r x P Q

(17)
Where and are the real and reactive power flow
between buses i and j, and
ij
r
ij
x are the resistance and
reactance of the line between i and j. When the load is
increased, the value of MLI decreases from a value higher
than 1 to a value of 1 at the point of collapse. The high value
of MLI indicates the higher voltage stability margin which
reduces the risk of voltage collapse. Hence the second
objective function (2) f is to maximize the MLI of the system
which increases the voltage stability margin.
n
1
(2) max ( )
i
i
f MLI i

(18)
where n is the total number of buses.
D. Transmission Line Losses
The active and reactive power loss of the transmission
network is given by [14]:
2
2
1 1
n n
ij
loss ij
i j ij
R
P V
Z

(19)
2
2
1 1
n n
ij
loss ij
i j ij
X
Q V
Z

(20)
where
ij
R
ij
X
ij
Z is the resistance, is the reactance and is the
impedance of the line connecting buses i and bus j.
ij
V is the voltage drop across the line segment connecting
bus i and bus j.
Finally, the third objective function consists of two sub-
objective functions (3) f (4) f and which are the
minimization of active and reactive power losses.
2
2
1 1
(3)
n n
ij
loss ij
i j ij
R
f Min P V
Z

(21)
2
2
1 1
(4)
n n
ij
loss ij
i j ij
R
f Min Q V
Z

(22)
III. MULTI -OBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHM
The selected problem can be designated as a multi-
criteria and multi-objective optimization problem which
requires simultaneous optimization of four objectives with
different individual optima. Objectives are such that none of
them can be improved without degradation of another. Hence
instead of a unique optimal solution, there exists a set of
optimal tradeoffs between the objectives, the so called pareto-
optimal solutions. In multi-objective optimization, the
solutions are compared with each other based on non
dominance property. For this class of problems GA based
Multi-Objective Algorithm [15] is more suitable.
A. General procedure of MOGA
(i)Initializing Population
Population is initialized with random values which are with
in the specified range. Each chromosome consists of the
decision variables, values of objective functions, rank and
crowding distance information.
ij
P
ij
Q
672 2007 39
th
North American Power Symposium (NAPS 2007)
September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63
(ii)Non domination sort IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The population is sorted based on non-domination. An
individual is said to dominate another if the objective
functions of it is no worse than the other and at least in one of
its objective functions is better than the other. All the
individuals in the first front are given a rank (fitness) of 1; the
second front individuals are assigned rank 2 and so on. After
assigning the rank the crowding in each front is calculated.
The standard IEEE WSCC 3-Generator, 9-Bus test system
[16] shown in Fig. 6 is considered to test the performance of
MOGA. The Bus data, line data with thermal limits for the test
system are given in the Appendix. For TTC evaluation the test
system is divided into two areas as shown in Fig 6. The base
value is assumed to be 100 MVA. The voltage limits are set to
a minimum of 0.9 p.u. and a maximum of 1.05 p.u. The
transfer of power is considered from Area 1 to Area 2. The
optimal location of TCSC and SVC and its set values
(iii) Crowding distance
Crowding distance is assigned front wise. The crowding
distance is a measure of how close an individual is to its
neighbors. Large average crowding distance will result in
better diversity in the population.
csc t X svc Q and respectively are found using MOGA. The
population is set to 30 and the total number of generations to
500. The results are tabulated for the following cases in
TABLE- I.
(iv) Selection
Once the individuals are sorted based on non-domination
and with crowding distance assigned, the selection is carried
out using a crowded-comparison operator. An individual is
selected if the rank is lesser than the other or if the crowding
distance is greater than the other.
Case-1: no FACTS devices are placed
In this base case (with out FACTS device) the total load in
the system is increased from 381.38 MVA to 458.63 MVA to
obtain the maximum TTC value of 58.658 MW. The limiting
condition is the voltage at bus 8 which reduces from 0.944
p.u. to 0.896 p.u. The Total MLI value is 36.783 which
(v) Genetic Operators
The genetic operation is performed only on the decision
variables. A simulated binary crossover operator for crossover
operation and polynomial mutation is used to produce
offsprings.
Start
(vi) Recombination and Selection
The offspring population is combined with the current
generation population and selection is performed to set the
individuals of the next generation.
B. MOGA for the Composite Problem
The MOGA for solving the composite problem is presented
below:
Step 1: Population size and number of generations is set.
Step 2: Read Bus data, line data, objectives, size of
decision variables, minimum and maximum
value of decision variables.
Step 3: Initialize the Population.
Step 4: TCSC and SVC location and its set values are
obtained from decision variables of MOGA.
Step 5: Fitness for the objective functions defined in the
equations (16), (18), (21) and (22) are evaluated
as indicated below.
(i) TTC specified in (15) is found using RPF
method.
(ii) MLI by using (17) and
(iii)Transmission loss using (19) and (20).
Step 6: Check for convergence. If it is less than the
tolerance then go to step 9. If not, go to next step.
Step 7: Non -dominated sorting, crowding distance
assignment, selection, cross over and Mutation
operations are performed.
Step 8: Replace Population. Then go to step 4.
Step 9: From the solution identify the setting and location
of TCSC and SVC and calculate TTC, MLI and
transmission loss.
The flow chart for the proposed algorithm is shown in Fig 5.
Read the Population size, generation size, number of
objectives, size and range of decision variables.
Read Power flow data and system operation limits
Population initialization
Obtain the location and set values of TCSC and SVC
from the decision variables
Calculate fitness for the following
(i) TTC using RPF method
(ii) MLI for Voltage stability margin
(iii) Transmission loss.
Yes
Convergence
Replace Population
Non Dominated sorting, crowding distance
assignment, selection, cross over and Mutation
operation.
Stop
No
Fig 5. Flow chart for the solution of composite problem
2007 39
th
North American Power Symposium (NAPS 2007) 673
September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63
TABLE- I
RESULTS FOR IEEE WSCC 3 GENERATORS 9 BUS TEST SYSTEM FOR A TRANSFER OF POWER FROM AREA1 TO AREA 2
With MOGA and FACTS Devices With out MOGA
and no FACTS
device
Parameters TCSC alone SVC alone With TCSC and SVC
TCSC at line 4 6 Optimal Location of FACTS
device
----- Line 8 9 Bus 8
SVC at bus 8
= -0.3151 csc t X
= 89.200 Mvar csc t X svc Q = -0.5 ----- Device settings
= 98.5242 Mvar svc Q
Maximum TTC
value (MW)
58.658 76.3689 97.5506 109.6277
Total Transfer
Capacity
voltage limit at bus 8 Thermal limit line 7 8 Thermal limit line 7 8 Thermal limit line 7 8 Violation
Total MLI 36.783 36.0481 39.7931 40.4341 Voltage
stability
margin (MLI)
Least MLI
value (MVA)
2.2256 (at Bus 8) 2.1642 (at Bus 5) 2.1176 (at Bus 5) 2.0202 (at Bus 5)
9.337 10.704 9.875 10.649 P (MW) loss Transmission
losses -20.485 -11.119 -18.240 -10.653 Qloss (Mvar)
Transmission Losses/TTC Ratio 0.15917 0.1401 0.1012 0.09713
indicates that an additional load (MVA*MLI) of 16,869
MVA will drive the system to the point of voltage collapse.
The active power loss is 9.337 MW as against the power
transfer of only 58.658 MW. The Transmission Losses /
TTC ratio is 0.15917.
Case-2: only TCSC is placed
In the case with TCSC alone, which is located in line 8-9
specified by MOGA with csc t X = -0.5, the total load in the
system is increased from 381.38 MVA to 481.98 MVA to
obtain the maximum TTC value of 76.3689 MW. The
limiting condition is the thermal limit of line 7-8. The Total
MLI value is 36.0481 which indicate that an additional load
of 17,374.46 MVA will drive the system to the point of
voltage collapse. The active power loss is only 10.704
MW as against the power transfer of 76.3689 MW. The
Transmission Losses / TTC ratio is 0.1401.
Case-3: only SVC is Placed
In the case with SVC alone, which is connected in bus 8
with svc Q = 89.2 MVAR specified by MOGA, the total load
in the system is increased from 381.38 MVA to 509.92
MVA to obtain the maximum TTC value of 97.55 MW.
The limiting condition is the thermal limit of line 7-8. The
Total MLI value is 39.7931 which indicate that an
additional load of 20,291.29 MVA will drive the system to
the point of voltage collapse. The active power loss is only
9.875 MW as against the power transfer of 97.55 MW. The
Transmission Losses / TTC ratio is 0.1012.
Case-4: both SVC and TCSC are placed
csc t X In the final case with TCSC at line 4-6 with = -
0.3151, and SVC connected at bus 8 with svc Q = 98.5242
MVAR specified by MOGA, the total load in the system is
increased from 381.38 MVA to 525.87 MVA to obtain the
maximum TTC value of 109.6277 MW. The limiting
condition is the thermal limit of line 7-8. The Total MLI
value is 40.4341 which indicate that an additional load of
21,262.91 MVA will drive the system to the point of
voltage collapse. The active power loss is only 10.649
MW as against the power transfer of 109.6277 MW. The
Transmission Losses / TTC ratio is 0.09713.
The results in Table-I indicate the power transfer
capacity of the network is significantly improved in this
case. Also, the losses are minimized to a least value as
evident that the Losses/TTC ratio is least in this case.
Area 1
Area 2
Fig 6. IEEE WSCC 3 generator, 9-Bus test system
V. CONCLUSION
Total Transfer capacity, Voltage Stability and
minimization of transmission line losses are treated as a
composite problem. The proposed Multi-Objective Genetic
Algorithm (MOGA) optimally places FACTS devices in
power system that can redistribute the power in to the
network in such a way that, there is a significant
improvement in TTC, voltage stability margin and
minimization of transmission line losses. The work
concludes the placement of FACTS devices both TCSC
and SVC at their optimal locations has significant impact in
the improvement of the individual problems. Compared to
the use of individual FACTS devices to deal the three
problems independently, great economical justification is
achieved by the use of FACTS devices when the three
problems are treated as a composite.
674 2007 39
th
North American Power Symposium (NAPS 2007)
September 20, 2007 23:6 Research Publishing: Trim Size: 8.50in x 11.00in (IEEE proceedings) naps07drivercd:NAPS63
VI. APPENDIX
[12] Yan Ou; Chanan Singh, Improvement of Total Transfer Capacity
Using TCSC and SVC, IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer
Meeting, vol 2, pp 944 948, July 2001.
DATA FOR IEEE WSCC 3 GENERATORS 9 BUS TEST SYSTEM
[13] B. Venkatesh, Rakesh Ranjan, and H. B. Gooi, Optimal
Reconfiguration of Radial Distribution Systems to Maximize
Loadability, IEEE Trans. Power Systems., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 260-
266, Feb. 2004.
Generation
Bus No Voltage P Q Area load load
MW Mvar
1 1.025 0.0 0.0 73 0.0 1
2 1.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
[14] Borka Milosevic, Miroslav Begovic, Capacitor Placement for
Conservative Voltage Reduction on Distribution Feeders, IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, vol 19, No.3, pp. 1360-1367, July 2004.
3 1.025 0.0 0.0 85 0.0 2
4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
5 1.0 125 50.0 0.0 0.0 1
[15] Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan
A Fast Elitist Multi Objective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA - II,
IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary computation, vol 6, No.2, pp. 182-197,
April 2002.
6 1.0 90 30.0 0.0 0.0 2
7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
8 1.0 100 135.0 0.0 0.0 2
[16] Anderson P.M and Fouad A Power System Control and Stability
IEEE Press, NJ 1994.
9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
Line
VII. REFERENCES
[1] Available Transfer Capability Definitions and Determination
NERC report, June 1996.
[2] Wang Feng, and G. B. Shrestha, Allocation of TCSC devices to
optimize Total Transfer capacity in a Competitive Power Market,
IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol 2, pp 587 -
593, Feb 2001.
[3] Ying Xiao, Y. H. Song, Chen-Ching Liu, Y. Z. Sun, Available
Transfer Capability Enhancement Using FACTS Devices, IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, vol 18, no 1, pp 305 312, Feb 2003.
[4] Farahmand, H. Rashidi-Nejad, M. Fotuhi-Firoozabad,
M. , Implementation of FACTS devices for ATC enhancement
using RPF technique, IEEE Power Engineering conference on
Large Engineering Systems, pp 30-35, July 2004.
[5] Ongsakul, W. Jirapong, P. Optimal allocation of FACTS devices
to enhance total transfer capability using evolutionary
programming, IEEE international Symposium on Circuits and
System, vol 5, pp 4175- 4178, May 2005.
[6] Huang, G.M. Nair, N.K.C., Incorporating TCSC into voltage
Stability constrained OPF Formulation, IEEE Power Engineering
Society Summer Meeting, vol 3, pp 1547 1552, July 2002.
[7] A. E. Hammad, Comparing the voltage Control Capabilities of
Present and Future VAr Compensating Techniques in Transmission
systems IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol 11, No.1, pp. 475-484,
Jan 1996.
[8] Abdel-Moamen, M.A.; Narayana Prasad Padhy, Power Flow
Control and Transmissin loss Minimization with TCSC for Practical
Power Networks, IEEE Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, vol 2, issue 13-17, pp 880 884, July 2003.
[9] Biansoongnern, S, Chusanapiputt, S, Phoomvuthisarn, S, Optimal
SVC and TCSC Placement for Minimization of Transmission
Losses, Powercon, International conference on power system
technology ,pp 1-5, Oct 2006.
[10] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui, and A. J. Germond, Optimal Location of
FACTS Devices to Enhance Power System Security, IEEE Bologna
Power Tech Conference, vol 3, pp 7, June 2003.
[11] E Acha,V G Agelidis, O Anaya Lara, T J E Miller, Power
Electronic Control in Electrical Systems, Newnes Power
Engineering series, 2006, pp107-109.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Venkata Ramana .N is Graduated (in 1986)and
Post-Graduated (in 1991) from S.V.University,
Tirupati and Ph.D(in 2005)from J.N.T.University,
Hyderabad, A.P., India. He is presently working as
professor in the Department of Electrical &
Electronics Engineering, J.N.T.University College
of Engineering, Kakinada. He has publications in
international journals and conferences and presented papers in IEEE
Conferences held in Canada and Singapore. His research interests are
design of intelligent systems for power systems using Fuzzy Logic Control
and Genetic and Cluster Algorithms.
Chandrasekar.K received his B.E.(E.E.E.) from
University of Madras, Madras, India in 1997 and
M.E (Power systems) form Madurai Kamarajar
University, Madurai, India in 2001. He is currently
pursuing PhD in J.N.T. University, Hyderabad, A.P,
India. His research interests are in Power system
Optimization, and application of FACTS devices
He is a member of IEEE.
Number
Thermal
Rating
Resistance Reactance Susceptance
p.u p.u p.u Sen
Bus
Rec
MVA
Bus
1 4 0.0000 0.0576 0.0000 250
4 6 0.0170 0.0920 0.1580 250
6 9 0.0390 0.1700 0.3580 250
3 9 0.0000 0.0586 0.0000 250
8 9 0.0119 0.1008 0.2090 250
7 8 0.0085 0 .0720 0.1490 150
2 7 0.0000 0.0625 0.0000 300
5 7 0.0320 0.1610 0.3060 150
4 5 0.0100 0.0850 0.1760 250
2007 39
th
North American Power Symposium (NAPS 2007) 675