International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

A Zonal Congestion Management Using Hybrid Evolutionary Firefly

(HEFA) Algorithm

Jagadeeswar Reddy Cintam

PhD Scholar, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Govt. College of Technology, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu. Coimbatore District Scholar.gct@gmail.com

Dr. D. Mary,

Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Govt. College of Technology, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu. dmary.1008@yahoo.com

P. Thanigaimani,

PhD Scholar, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Govt. College of Technology, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu. Thanigaimani@gmail.com

P.Salomipuspharaj,

PhD Scholar, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Govt. College of Technology, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, Tamilnadu. vinbin1999@gmail.com

Abstract system is said to be „congested‟. Congestion Management is

In deregulated electricity market transmission congestion
occurs when there is insufficient transmission capacity to
simultaneously accommodate all transmission service requests
within a region. One of the most important tasks of the
Independent System Operator (ISO) is to manage system
security and congestion management for which it has to
procure ancillary services may cause rise in electricity price
resulting in market inefficiency. The problem solving action
of congestion management schemes, it is difficult for ISO to
select the most sensitive generators to re-schedule their real
and reactive powers. In this paper the most desirable
rescheduling of both real and reactive power to minimize the
total congestion cost using proposed Hybrid Evolutionary
Firefly Algorithm (HEFA) is proposed. And the selection of
most sensitive generators to change both the real and reactive
powers is done using Transmission Congestion Distribution
Factors (TCDFs). The proposed methods have been tested on
a practical Indian 75-bus System.
Keywords: Congestion Management, Evolutionary
Algorithms, Congestion Distribution Factors.
Introduction
The deregulation and privatization of electricity markets have
a very large effect on almost all power systems around the
world. Competitive electricity markets are complex systems
with many buyers and sellers. In any competitive market,
system security plays an important main role from the
market/system operator‟s point of view. When the producers
and consumers of electric energy, desire to produce and
consume with the amount of power that would cause to
operate the system at or beyond the power transfer limits, the
about controlling the transmission system so that limits are
observed and is perhaps the most fundamental transmission
management problem. One of the most critical and important
tasks of the Independent System Operator (ISO) is to manage
the system security, and may cause rise in electricity price
resulting in market inefficiency [2].
Congestion before deregulation was treated in terms of steady
state security and the basic objective was to control the
generators‟ output, and it will remain system secure (no limits
were violated) at the lowest cost as seen by the mutually
agreeing Vertically Integrated Electric Utilities (VIEUs). But
with deregulation, congestion has become a term in
combination with power systems, means of generation,
transmission, distribution and competition. When there is
congestion in a transmission system, locational prices can be
significantly different from those of an unconstrained optimal
solution [2]. Hence congestion alleviation is a very important
issue and is an active area of research [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
Various congestion management suitable schemes for
different structure of electricity market have been reported in
the literature [3, 4]. Linear sensitivity factors based
approaches for congestion management have been presented
in [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Ning [17] proposed congestion clusters
based on DC power transfer, distribution factors for an
efficient congestion management. Bialek et al. [18] proposed
improvements in National Electricity Regulatory
Commission‟s (NERC) Transmission Loading Relief (TLR)
procedures based on Power Transfer Distribution Factors
(PTDF‟s) and congestion management process by allowing
multilateral trades. Congestion management with optimally
placed FACTS controllers has been presented in [19, 20].
Verma et al. [21, 22] proposed a simple and efficient model
for location of Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) for

39903
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
congestion management. Several Optimal Power Flow (OPF)
based congestion management schemes have been proposed.
An approach for relieving congestion using the minimum shift
in the transactions is presented in [11]. From the literature
survey, it is observed that there are many limitations when
conventional deterministic based OPF is used to optimize the
congestion cost.
To overcome the limitations, this paper proposed Hybrid
Evolutionary Firefly Algorithm (HEFA) to create an efficient
congestion management market, where the readjustment of
transactions in the most sensitive cluster can help with
eliminating congestion. The proposed method utilizes two sets
of sensitivity indexes termed as Real power Transmission
Congestion Distribution Factors (PTCDFs) and Reactive
power Transmission Congestion Distribution Factors
(QTCDFs) [3, 17] for congestion management in competitive
power markets where the selection and participation of
generators/sources, not only depend on their reactive
sensitivity, but also on their bid price for up/down regulation
to alleviate congestion. The most sensitive zones have been
identified as the union of most sensitive zones obtained on the
basis of real and reactive line flow sensitivity indexes
separately [3]. This paper also demonstrated the impact of
optimal scheduling of generators; using GA and FA based
OPFs [22, 25, 28, 29, 30] in congestion management in pool
model for a single congestion case. The effectiveness of the
proposed methods has been tested on a 75-bus practical Indian
system. The re-dispatch of transactions for congestion
management in a cluster of buses is formulated as a nonlinear
programming and has been solved using MATLAB
Programming.
Mathematical formulation
The real power flow and reactive power flow
a line- connected between bus- and bus- can be written as
Pij=Vi Vj Yij cos(θij + δj - δj) - Vi2 Yij cosθij
Qij= - Vi Vj Yij sin(θij + δj - δj) - Vi2 Yij sinθij – (Vi2 Ysh) / 2
where and are the voltage magnitude and angle at bus- .
and are magnitude and angle of th element of
matrix. is the shunt charging admittance of line- .
Transmission Congestion Distribution Factors (TCDFs)
Real and reactive transmission congestion distribution factors
(TCDFs) denote how much active and reactive power flow
over a transmission line would change due to change in real
and re-active power injections, respectively. The real
PTCDF‟s are de-fined as the change in the real power flow
in a trans-mission line- connected between bus- and
bus- due to unit change in the power injection at any
bus- . Mathematically, the PTCDFs for line- can be written
as
PTCDnk = Pij / Pn
Similarly, the QTCDFs are defined as the change in the
reactive power flow in a transmission line- connected
between bus- and bus- due to unit change in the reactive
power injection at bus- and can be written as
QTCDnk = Qij / Qn
Zonal-Based Transmission Congestion Management
There are two broad methods for congestion management in a
deregulated market. The first one is based on “price signal, ”
which may be in the form of change in locational marginal
price due to congestion or in the form of zonal price as
practiced in the California market. The second approach is
based on readjustment of transactions, which have been
considered in the present work. The concept of congestion
zone in this work is different from that used in the “California
market.” In the present work, congestion zones are nothing
but a cluster of buses, selected based on sensitivity of flow in
the congested line.
The TCDFs have been utilized for identifying congestion
clusters (zones) for a given system. The congestion
zone/cluster of type 1 has been defined as zone having large
and non uniform TCDFs, and the congestion zones of type 2
and higher have been defined as those having small or similar
TCDFs. There-fore, the transactions in the congestion zone1
have critical and unequal impact on the line flow. The
congestion zones of type 2, 3 and higher are farther from the
congested line of interest. Therefore, any transaction outside
the most sensitive zone 1 will contribute very little to the line
flow. Thus, the identification of congestion zones will reduce
the computational burden, considerably, in both redispatching
and physical curtailments necessary for the transmission
loading relief (TLR) in case of emergency and the adjustment
of system users themselves under normal conditions.
The congestion zonal-based method is also applicable if more
than one transmission line congestion conditions are present
in the system. The congestion clusters/zones for a multi
congestion case can be obtained by superimposing the
clusters/zones corresponding to the individual line congestion.
The paper assumes that only one system operator is managing
the complete system. However, in case of several system
in operators, the clusters/zones will be defined separately to
manage the congestion in their operating area
Proposed methodology for zonal congestion management
using HEFA
There are two broad methods for congestion management in a
deregulated market. The first one is based on “price signal, ”
which may be in the form of change in locational marginal
price due to congestion or in the form of zonal price as
practiced in the California market. The second approach is
based on readjustment of transactions, which have been
considered in the present work. The concept of congestion
zone in this work is different from that used in the “California
market.” In the present work, congestion zones are nothing
but a cluster of buses, selected based on the sensitivity of flow
in the congested line. The TCDFs [3] [17] have been utilized
for identifying congestion clusters (zones) for a given system.
The congestion zone/cluster of type 1 and type 2 has been
defined as zones having large and non uniform TCDFs and
higher has been defined as those having small or similar
TCDFs. Therefore, the zone1 have critical transactions and
unequal impact on the line flow. The congestion zones/cluster
of type 2, type 3 and higher from the congested line of interest
[11]. Therefore, any transaction outside the most diplomatic
zone1/cluster will subscribe very little to the line flow. Thus,
39904
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

the identification of congestion zones will reduce the Figure.1 Pseudo code for Firefly Algorithm (Yang, 2010).
computational burden, considerably, in both re-dispatching The light intensity thus attractiveness is inversely proportional
and physical curtailments necessary for the transmission with the particular distance r from the light source. Thus the
loading relief (TLR) in case of necessity and the balancing of light and attractiveness is decrease as the distance increase.
system users themselves under normal conditions. The proper (1)
management of reactive power support in the network
improves the system voltage profile and also helps in I = light intensity,
managing congestion up to some extent. It is important to = light intensity at initial or original light intensity,
identify the generators required to provide reactive power
= the light absorption coefficient
support in congestion management. In the present paper, the
reactive support of generators, in addition to support the real r = distance between firefly i and j
power generation, has been considered to manage the
congestion. Attractiveness is proportionally to the light intensity seen by
the another fireflies, thus attractiveness is β
(2)
The proposed algorithm is discussed as follows
In the book (Yang, 2010), there is an explanation of how the = Attractiveness at r is 0
algorithm that follows the firefly behaviour in nature. Firefly
mostly produces short and rhythmic flashes that produced by a The distance between two fireflies can define using Cartesian
process of bioluminescence. The flashing light is to attract distance
their partners (communication). Thus, this based on the light
intensity factor the fireflies to move toward the other firefly. (3)
The light intensity is varied by the distance from the eyes of
the beholder. It is safe to say that the light intensity is increase Firefly i is attracted toward the more attractive firefly j, the
as the distance decreased. The light intensity also the movemeunt is defined as
influence by surroundings of air, thus the intensity becomes
inversely proposional to the distance (Yang, 2010). Firefly (4)
algorithm was followed three idealize rules, 1) Fireflies are
attracted toward each others due to all firflies are unisex. 2) In equation (4), the first term is for attraction, is the
The attractiveness is proportional to its brightness of the limitation when the value is tend to zero or too large. If
fireflies, thus the less brightness firefly will move forward to approaching zero ( , the attractiveness and brightness
the more brightness firefly. 3) If there are fireflies brighter
become constant, . In another word, a firefly can be
than given firfly, it will move randomly(Yang, 2010).
seen in any position, easy to complete global search. If the is
nearing infinity or too large ( , the attractiveness and
Firefly algorithm Structure brightness become decrease. The firefly movements become
In firefly algorithm, there are two important variables, which random. The implementation of firefly algorithm can be done
is the intensity of light and their attractiveness. Firefly is move in these two asymptotic behaviors. While the second the term
toward the other firefly that has brighter flash than itself. The is for randomization, as is the randomize parameter. The
attractiveness is depended with the light intensity. can be replace by ran -1/2 which is ran is random number
generated from 0 to 1.

Firefly Algorithm Drawbacks of FA

Objective function f(x), Firefly algorithm has some disadvantage such as getting
Generate initial population of fireflies trapped into several local optima. Firefly algorithm performs
Light Intensity at is determined by local search as well and sometimes is unable to completely get
Define light absorption coefficient rid of them. Firefly algorithm parameters are set fixed and
they do not change with the time. In addition Firefly algorithm
While
does not memorize or remember any history of better situation
For i=1: n all n fireflies for each firefly and this causes them to move regardless of its
For j=1: n all n fireflies (inner loop) previous better situation, and they may end up missing their
If Move firefly i towards j; end if situations.
Vary attractiveness with distance r via FA is based on randomness, so it cannot always get the global
Evaluate New solutions and update light intensity best values; this problem is solved by using harmony search.
End for j On the other hand, HS [19] is a novel heuristic technique for
End for i optimization problems. In engineering optimization, the
Rank the fireflies and find the current global best g, engineers make an effort to find an optimum that can be
End while decided by an objective function. While, in the music
Postprocess result and visualization improvisation process, musicians searc h for most satisfactory

39905
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

harmony as decided by aesthetician. HS method originates in where is the vector of current best solution, F is the
the similarity between them. Hence Hybrid Evolutionary
mutation factor, and are randomly chosen vectors
Firefly algorithm (HEFA) approach is proposed.
from the neighboring solutions by Storn & Price (1997). Next,
the offspring solution was produced by the crossover
Hybrid Evolutionary Firefly algorithm (HEFA) operation that involved the parent and the trivial solution. The
HEFA method is basically a combination of the Firefly vectors of the ith offspring solution, , are created as follows:
algorithm (FA) by Yang (2009) and Differential Evolution
(DE) by Storn & Price (1997) methods. In this method, each (10)
solution in a population represents a solution which is located
randomly within a specified searching space. The i th
solution , is represented as follows:

(5)
where is a uniformly distributed random value between 0 to
where is the vector with and is the 1 and is the predefined crossover constant (Storn & Price
1997). As the population of the offspring solution was
time step. Evaluation of every solution‟s fitness value was
produced, a selection operation was required to keep the
carried out initially. Thereafter the solution delivering best
population size constant. The operation is performed as
fitness value in the population is assumed to be the current
best solution. The sorting operation was then carried out follows:
wherein the recent by evaluated solutions ranking was done
on the basis of fitness values and then segregated as under two
(11)
sub-populations.
First sub-population comprised of those solutions that
This indicates that the original solution would be replaced by
potentially generated fitness values. A comparison was drawn
the offspring solution if the fitness value of the offspring
on each ith solution fitness value in the first sub-population
solution was better than the original solution. Otherwise, the
with the jth neighboring solution. If it was determined that the
original solution would remain in the population for the next
adjoining solution fitness value was comparatively better,
iteration.
distance between the solutions is calculated by employing the
Figure 4.2 shows the outline of the proposed HEFA method.
standard Euclidean distance measure. The distance was used
In this method, each solution in a population represents a
to compute the attractiveness, :
solution which is located randomly within a specified
searching space. Thereafter the solution delivering best fitness
(6)
value in the population is assumed to be the current best
solution. This indicates that the original solution would be
where are the predefined attractiveness, light
replaced by the offspring solution if the fitness value of the
absorption coefficient, and distance between ith solution and offspring solution is better than the original solution.
its jth neighboring solution, respectively (Yang 2009). Later, Otherwise, the original solution would remain in the
this new attractiveness value was used to update the position population for the next iteration. The whole procedure is
of the solution, as follows: repeated until the stopping criterion is met.

(7)

where and are uniformly distributed random values

between 0 to 1. Hence, updated attractiveness values
supported population so that it could effectively ascend closer
to the solution generating current best fitness value (Yang
2009).
However second sub-population comprises of solutions that
generate comparatively lesser significant fitness values.
Solutions from this particular population underwent DE
method evolutionary operations. Inconsequential solutions
were generated initially through the mutation operation that
was carried out on original counterparts. The ith trivial
solution, , was generated based on the following equation:

(8)
(9)

39906
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Hybrid Evolutionary Firefly Algorithm (HEFA)

Input: Randomly initialized position of d dimension problem:

Output: Position of the approximate global optima:

Begin
Initialize population; Evaluate fitness value; Where
Select current best solution;

Sort population based on the fitness value;

Calculate distance and attractiveness

Update position;
End If Where
End For
End For

Create trivial solution

Perform crossover
Perform selection
End For

Where CC is the total Congestion Cost, NG is the number of

generators participating in congestion management, is
End For
the MVA flow limit of a line connected between bus-I and
End Begin
bus-j, and are the total real and reactive power loss,
Figure.2 Pseudo Code of the Proposed HEFA which have been expressed using exact loss formula [14]. b N
is the number of buses in the system. and are the
original real and reactive power flow in line-K (between bus-i
Working process and bus-j) caused by all of the transactions requesting the
The redispatch of transactions for congestion management in transmission service. and are the real and reactive
a pool model is formulated as a nonlinear programming
power adjustments of generator at bus-g. , , and are
problem and has been solved using Hybrid Evolutionary
Firefly algorithm (HEFA) [30] programming in the MATLAB predetermined costs coefficients of ith generator and is
environment. the nominal apparent power of generator and K is the profit
The optimization problem is formulated as: rate of active power generation taken between 5 and 10%
Minimize [15]. and are the cost of active power and reactive
Subject to power generation respectively.
The and given in the above equations
represent the real and reactive power flow sensitivities of line
i – j with respect to bus real and reactive power injections,
respectively and has been termed as real and reactive power
+ transmission congestion distribution factors. The derivations
of and are discussed in detail in [3].

39907
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

System studies Table.1 Results Comparison between various approaches

The proposed HEFA have been illustrated on a 75-bus Indian
system [17]. For this system, the combined congestion zones PSO based GA based FA based HEFA
based on the real and reactive power flow sensitivity indexes OPF OPF OPF based OPF
for a line of interest 26-41 are shown in Fig.7. The system has 1.2138 1.5456 1.9912 2.0123
been divided into three zones with zone 1 as the most -2.718 -2.128 -1.154 -1.056
sensitive zone. It has been assumed that SO selects generators
2.365 2.6321 2.956 3.1578
G3, G12, and G13 from the most sensitive zone 1 to
participate in the congestion management based on their -0.2941 -0.3012 -0.3421 -0.3698
qualifying bids in an open market. In this paper a pool model 0.6732 0.6918 0.7123 0.7348
without bilateral and multilateral contracts. And the changes -0.3238 -0.3041 -0.2954 -0.2769
in the real power output of generators have been determined Congestion
with reactive power support from the generators. The Cost
congestion cost, change in real and reactive powers and the Best Value 4754.131 4215.124 4031.265 3967.156
computation time are given in the Table 1. The change in real
and reactive power generations have been shown in fig.3 and
fig.4. And the PTCDFs and QTCDFs are shown in Table 2. Worst Value 4825.768 4654.310 4420.632 4364.697

Average 4770.720 4612.874 4587.324 4216.

For HEFA: Value 879
Population size of fireflies (NP) = 60; CPU Time 0.8625 Sec 0.7423 Sec 0.7035 Sec 0.6912
Max no. of functional evaluations = 5000;
Max no. of generations = 20; Table.2 PTCDFs and QTCDFs
No. of variables (n) = 6;
Penalty factor (PF) = 100; Bus PTCDFs QTCDFs Bus PTCDFs QTCDFs
Light Intensity at is determined by 2 -0.024777 -0.0327 39 -0.127263 -0.0309
Define light absorption coefficient 3 -0.116046 -0.1459 40 -0.10302 -0.031198
4 -0.117718 -0.0289 41 0.035506 0.020248
If Move firefly i towards j; end if 5 -0.126142 -0.0183 42 0.032943 0.014853
Vary attractiveness with distance r via 6 -0.126064 -0.0115 43 -0.122038 -0.027001
7 -0.127263 -0.031 44 -0.067148 -0.038696
Evaluate New solutions and update light intensity Rank the 8 -0.102779 -0.0254 45 -0.061437 -0.038431
fireflies and find the current global best 9 0.019166 0.0153 46 -0.033001 -0.021201
From the graphs, it is evident that both computation time and 10 -0.100421 -0.067725 47 -0.098487 -0.049766
congestion cost are less in the case of HEFA based OPF when 11 -0.10302 -0.01134 48 -0.10302 -0.031323
12 0.035506 0.03198 49 -0.10302 -0.031354
compared with other existing approaches like PSO based
13 0.032943 0.02899 50 -0.059875 -0.02945
OPF, GA based OPF and FA based OPF. In the Fig.3 and
14 -0.122038 -0.02113 51 -0.149811 -0.124172
Fig.4 it is shown that the change in both real and reactive 15 -0.067148 -0.038696 52 -0.149811 -0.12482
powers as result of OPF using HEFA. The major contribution 16 -0.024777 -0.010143 53 -0.122636 -0.039498
of this paper is that HEFA based OPFs utilize not only the 17 -0.012035 -0.003412 54 -0.102779 -0.038573
active power but also the reactive power dispatch, since the 18 -0.116046 -0.046973 55 -0.079469 -0.038961
reactive power dispatch will play a vital role in the congestion 19 -0.10302 -0.090114 56 -0.120321 -0.032349
relief at low congestion cost. 20 -0.10302 -0.063304 57 -0.123192 -0.037534
21 -0.122089 -0.043817 58 -0.122804 -0.03406
22 -0.140891 -0.082742 59 -0.124379 -0.035661
23 -0.047615 -0.034452 60 -0.135445 -0.067962
24 -0.100421 -0.067725 61 -0.123179 -0.035177
25 -0.135445 -0.067562 62 -0.124982 -0.020595
26 -0.220961 -0.215623 63 -0.089698 -0.038855
27 -0.149811 -0.122179 64 -0.10302 -0.063758
28 -0.117718 -0.027612 65 -0.122089 -0.043815
29 -0.122349 -0.058302 66 -0.10302 -0.063543
30 -0.122089 -0.043775 67 -0.100116 -0.064936
31 -0.126142 -0.01138 68 -0.122799 -0.062105
32 -0.126064 -0.011726 69 -0.051619 -0.04586
33 -0.127263 -0.031032 70 -0.135445 -0.068458
34 -0.102779 -0.013777 71 -0.143058 -0.107294
35 0.019166 0.008158 72 -0.135445 -0.068345
36 -0.057139 -0.052514 73 -0.058587 -0.037984
37 -0.051619 -0.045716 74 -0.043973 -0.032485
38 -0.130966 -0.061788 75 -0.122349 -0.058322

39908
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
Fig.3 Change in P-generation for the 75-bus Indian system
PSO based OPF
Generation in pu
1 GA based OPF
Change in Q -
FA based OPF
0.5 HEFA based OPF
0 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, Vol.4, pp. 6,
G3 G12 G13
-0.5 Generators
Fig.4 Change in Q-generation for the 75-bus Indian system
Fig.5 combined congestion zones for the 75- bus system
Conclusion
In this paper Optimal Power-Dispatch problems, considering
practical constraints, have been solved using HEFA. The
major contribution of this paper is that HEFA based OPFs
utilize both active and reactive power cost functions in the
objective function or fitness function, since the reactive power
plays a vital role in the congestion relief at low congestion
cost. From the results it is evident that an algorithm based on
HEFA method provides congestion cost better than the other
existing approaches like GA based OPF, PSO based OPF, FA
based OPF. Moreover, the studies reveal that HEFA method
provides much faster solution than the other existing methods.
39909
References
[1] M. Ilic, F.D. Galiana, L. Fink, Power System
Restructuring Engineering and Economics, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1998.
[2] P. Silpa, “Power Market Analysis Tool for
Congestion Management”, M.S thesis, Dept. Comp.
and Electrical. Eng., West Virginia University, 2007.
[3] A. Kumar, S.C. Srivastava, S.N. Singh, “A zonal
congestion management approach using real and
reactive power rescheduling”, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 18 (February (1)) (2004) 554–562.
[4] A. Kumar, S.C. Srivastava, S.N. Singh, “Congestion
management in competitive power market: A
bibliographical survey”, Electric Power Syst. Res. 76
(2005) 153–164.
[5] Goncalves, M. J. D., Zita, A. Vale, “Evaluation of
transmission congestion impact in market power, ”
June 2003.
[6] Huang, G. M., Ping Yan, “The impacts of TCSC and
SVC on power system load curtailments, ” IEEE
Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Vol. 1,
pp. 33-37, July 2001
[7] Song, Y. H., Phichaisawat, S., Taylor, G. A.,
“Congestion management considering voltage
security constraints, ” International Conference on
Power System Technology, Vol. 3, pp. 13-17,
October 2002.
[8] Srivastava, S. C., Perveen Kumar, “Optimal power
dispatch in deregulated market considering
congestion management, ” International Conference
on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring
and Power Technologies, pp. 53-59, April 2000.
[9] Xiaoming Feng, Jiuping Pan, Le Tang, Henry Chao,
Jian Yang, “Economic evaluation of transmission
congestion relief based on power market simulations,
” IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
Vol. 2, pp. 13-17, July 2003.
[10] Yuen, Y. S., Lo, K. L., Snider, L. A., “Congestion
management in deregulated electricity markets, ”
IEEE International Conference on Electric Utility
Deregulation and Restructuring and Power
Technologies, pp. 47-52, April 2000.
[11] F. D. Galiana and M. Ilic, “A mathematical
framework for the analysis and management of
power transactions under open access, ” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 681–687, May 1998.
[12] J. Bialek, Topological generation and load
distribution factors for supplement charge allocation
in transmission open access, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 12 (August (3)) (1997) 1185–1193.
[13] F. Gubina, D. Grgic, I. Banic, A method for
determining the generator‟s share in consumer load,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (November (4)) (2000)
1376–1380.
[14] R. Audouin, D. Chaniotis, P. Tsamasphyrou, J.-M.
Coulondre, Coordinated auctioning of cross-border
capacity: an implementation, in: Proceedings of 5th
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 19 (2015) pp 39903-39910
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

International Conference on Power System [30] Kwang Y. Lee and Mohamed A. El-Sharkawi,
Management and Control, April 2002, pp. 25–30. Modern Heuristic Optimization Techniques: theory
[15] A.G. Bakirtzis, P.N. Biskas, Decentralized DC load and applications to power systems, Willey Inter
flow and applications to transmission management, Science, IEEE Press, 2008.
IEE Proc. Generation Transm. Distribution 149
(September (5)) (2002) 600–606.
[16] H.S. Jung, D. Hur, J.K. Park, Congestion cost
allocation method in a pool model, IEE Proc.
Generation Transm. Distribution 150 (September (5))
(2003) 604–610.
[17] C. N. Yu, M. Ilic, Congestion clusters-based markets
for transmission management, in: Proceedings of
IEEE PES, Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January
1999, pp. 821–832.
[18] J. W. Bialek, A. Germond, R. Cherkaoui, Improving
NERC transmission loading relief procedures,
Electricity J. 13 (June (5)) (2000) 11–19.
[19] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, Congestion management by
optimizing FACTS devices location, in: Proceedings
of International Conference on Electric Utility
Deregulation and Restructuring and Power
Technologies, DRPT, April 4–7, 2000, pp. 23–28.
[20] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, Optimal location of FACTS
devices for congestion management, Electric Power
Syst. Res. 58 (June) (2001) 71– 79.
[21] K.S. Verma, S.N. Singh, H.O. Gupta, Location of
unified power flow controller for congestion
management, Electric Power Syst. Res. 58 (June)
(2001) 89–96.
[22] S.N. Singh, K.S. Verma, H.O. Gupta, Optimal power
flow control in open market using unified power
flow controller, in: Proceedings of IEEE PES,
Summer Meeting, vol. 3, 1, July 15–19, 2001, pp.
1693–1703.
[23] Kalyanmoy Deb, Multi Objective Optimization
Using Evolutionary Algorithms, Willey Publishers,
June 27, 2001.
[24] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm
optimization, ” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural
Netw., vol. 4, Nov. 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
[25] Gomes JR, Saavedra OR. Optimal reactive power
dispatch using evolutionary computation: extended
algorithms.IEE Proc Generation Transmission
Distribution 1999; 146(6):586– 592.
[26] L L Lai and J T Ma and R Yokoyama and M Zhao,
“Improved genetic algorithms for optimal power
flow under both normal and contingent operation
states, ” Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol.
19, No. 5, pp. 287-292, 1997.
[27] Eberhart R, Shi Y. Comparison between genetic
algorithms and particle swarm optimization.
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on
Evolutionary Programming; IEEE Press; 1998.
[28] Yuryevich J, Wong KP. Evolutionary programming
based optimal power flow algorithm. IEEE Trans
Power Systems 1999; 14(4):1245– 1250.
[29] Bakirtzis AG, Biskas PN, Zoumas CE, Petridis V.
Optimal power flow by enhanced genetic algorithm.
IEEE Trans Power Systems 2002; 17(2):229–236.

39910