1
Transmission Congestion Management in
Hybrid Electricity Market with Optimal
Location of TCSC
Manasarani Mandala and
Abstract-- In a competitive power market, the task of an
independent system operator (ISO) is to ensure full dispatches of
the contracted power are carried out reliably. However, if it
threatens the system security then ISO makes decision on the re-
dispatch of the contracted power i.e., Congestion Management.
This paper proposes an optimal congestion management
approach in a deregulated electricity market using optimal
location of TCSC. Sensitivity factors are used to find the optimal
location TCSC. After placing TCSC the investment cost of TCSC
and generator rescheduling cost is minimized using Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Particle Swarm optimization
with Time Varying Acceleration Co-efficient (PSO-TVAC).
Numerical results on test system, IEEE 30 bus and IEEE 118 bus
systems are presented for illustration purpose and the results are
compared with Particle swarm optimization (PSO) in terms of
solution quality. The comprehensive experimental results prove
that the PSO-TVAC is one among the challenging optimization
methods which is indeed capable of obtaining higher quality
solutions for the proposed problem.
Index Terms Congestion Management, Optimal Location
of TCSC, Particle Swarm optimization (PSO), Particle Swarm
optimization with Time Varying Acceleration Co-efficient (PSO-
TVAC), Cost of TCSC, Voltage stability.
I. INTRODUCTION
I n a deregulated electricity market, the task of the
independent system operator (ISO) is to ensure that contracted
power transactions are carried out reliably. However, due to
the large number of transactions that take place
simultaneously, transmission networks may easily get
congested. Electricity markets will not be able to operate at its
competitive equilibrium with congestion in the system.
Congestion in transmission systems is a major problem and
may lead to electricity price spikes in restructured power systems.
Transmission congestion occurs when there is inadequate
transmission capacity to meet the demands of all customers and more
expensive generating units may have to be brought on-line, hereupon
electricity markets will not be able to operate at its competitive
Manasarani Mandala is a Research Scholar in Department of Electrical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, INDIA. (e-mail:
manasdee@iitr.ernet.in, manasaiitr@gmail.com ).
C. P. Gupta is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, INDIA. (e-mail: cpg_umist@yahoo.co.in ).
C. P. Gupta, Member, IEEE
equilibrium and also imperil system security. Therefore congestion
management is one of the key issues for secure and reliable system
operations in electric power markets.
Congestion occurrence can be experienced in various forms
as reported by Besharat et. al [1] which describes that the congestion
can be caused by transmission line outages, generator outages,
changes in demand and uncoordinated transactions. Subsequent
events led by congestion in power system can cause price spike in
certain regions and component damages. As a glimpse, the
occurrence of congestion is depending on the capacity and
management of the market facilities. Another effect resulted from the
congestion is the failure of the system to operate within the
competitive equilibrium as highlighted by N. Acharya et. al [2]. The
impact resulted from congestion is very significant in power system
operation because it can also depreciate the performance of the
system. One of the issues is the failure of transmission network
establishment. This has been highlighted by Pandey et. al in [3]
which several transmission network cannot be established due to the
congestion such as regulated monopolistic power system and
deregulated competitive power market.
The location of FACTS devices can be based on static or dynamic
performances of the system. The sensitivity factor methods are
generally used to find the best location to enhance the static
performance of the system. In [4], an overload sensitivity factor
(power flow index) is used for optimal location of series FACTS
devices (i.e. TCSC and TCPAR) for static congestion management. A
loss sensitivity factor method is used in [5] to determine the suitable
location for FACTS devices. The disadvantage of these methods is
that it may not capture the non-linearity associated with the system.
The enumerative procedures combined with sensitivity analysis have
been studied in [6], with the location decision made after evaluating
all possibilities. For large systems, the enumerative approach is not
practical given the large number of combinations that have to be
examined.
Numerous methods have been reported for social welfare
maximization and congestion management, which are based on
particle swarm optimization (for generation rescheduling and/or load
shedding) [7] and sensitivity analysis using transmission line
susceptances [8]. Recent solutions for managing power flow in
transmission lines are based on flexible AC transmission systems
(FACTS) [9]. Different approaches, based on sensitivity method,
have been proposed for optimal locating of FACTS devices in both
vertically integrated and unbundled power systems [10]. Application
of series FACTS for congestion management in deregulated
electricity markets is discussed in [11].For congestion issue, Methods
based on Optimal Power Flow (OPF) provide the most efficient
solutions in locating and sizing FACTS devices. The sensitivity based
method has been used to find optimal placement of TCSC to reduce
congestion in [12]. Although, these methods have good performance
to locate TCSC, they may not capture the nonlinearity associated
with the system. The effect of congestion on spot prices or Local
Marginal Prices (LMP) can be used to obtain TCSC optimal location.
 2

In [13] a novel method has been introduced in which differences Pi F = Vi 2 G ij ViV j G ij cos ( i j ) + B ij sin ( i j )
between local marginal prices (LMP) are used to make a priority list
to find suitable placement to install TCSC. In [14], a type of Security- PjF = V j2 G ij ViV j G ij cos ( i j ) B ij sin ( i j )
Constrained OPF (SCOPF) is proposed for minimizing total
generation costs with the decision variables of FACTS devices. In Q iF = Vi 2 Bij ViV j G ij sin ( i j ) B ij sin ( i j )
[15] the Tabu search method and in [16] the Genetic algorithm is
used to solve the combinatorial (i.e. to determine number and Q Fj = V j2 Bij + ViV j G ij cos ( i j ) + B ij sin ( i j )
location) problem of FACTS device allocation. However, these
methods are computationally demanding and less reliable. Where,
Mixed Integer Linear and Nonlinear Programming based Optimal
G ij =
x c ri j (x c x ij )
Power Flow (OPF) methods were used to determine the maximum
(r ) {r (x ) }
2 2 2 2
loadability using FACTS devices in pool and hybrid electricity ij + x ij ij + ij xc
markets [17-18]. EP was proposed to obtain optimal placement of
x c (r 2
x 2
+ x c x ij )
multi-type FACTS devices for simultaneously maximizing the Total G ij =
ij ij

(r ) {r (x ) }
2
Transfer Capability whereas minimizing the total system real power 2
ij + x 2
ij
2
ij + ij xc
loss and the results are better when compared to loss sensitivity index
method [19]. The optimal location for single and multi-type FACTS In the present study, the above model is incorporated in the OPF.
devices to improve system loadability with minimum cost of The maximum compensation by TCSC is limited to 70% of the
installation was determined using PSO [20] and further modifications reactance of the un-compensated line where TCSC is located.
were carried out in [21, 22,23]. An Ordinal Optimization (OO)
technique which uses Guaranteed Convergence Particle Swarm III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Optimization (GCPSO) was also proposed to enhance system Congestion management problem is formulated in two steps. The
loadability with FACTS devices to reduce computational effort [24]. criteria for optimal placement of TCSC have been done through
Therefore the main intent of the present work is to propose a Sensitivity Analysis and device cost is minimized using Bacterial
new technique for congestion management using optimal location of Foraging Particle Swarm Optimization.
TCSC. The proposed method utilizes the real power flow
performance index sensitivity. After placing TCSC the investment A. Sensitivity Analysis
cost of TCSC and Generator rescheduling costs are minimized using The Sensitivity Analysis is carried out for finding the optimal
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Particle Swarm location of TCSC.
Optimization with Time Varying Acceleration Co-efficient a. Real power flow performance index sensitivity factor
(PSO-TVAC). These two methods are compared. The IEEE-30 and The severity of the system loading under normal and
118 bus systems are used to serve as test systems for showing the contingency cases can be described by a real power line flow
capability of the proposed method. The simulation results show that performance index [13], as given below
the proposed method is efficient for lowering the congestion cost in a w m PL m
Nl 2n

deregulated electricity market. PI = m ax

m = 1 2 n PL m
(2)

II. STATIC MODELING OF TCSC Where PL M the real power is flow and P LmMa x is the rated
Fig. 1 shows a model of transmission line with TCSC connected capacity of the line- m , N is the exponent and wm is a real non-
between buses i and j. The transmission line is represented by its negative weighting coefficient which may be used to reflect the
lumped equivalent parameters connected between the two buses. importance of the lines. P I Will be small when all the lines are
During steady state, the TCSC can be considered as a static reactance within their limits and reach a high value when there are
jxc. The controllable reactance xc is directly used as the control overloads. Thus, it provides a good measure of severity of the line
variable in the power flow equations. overloads for given state of the power system.
The real power flow PI sensitivity factors with respect to the
parameters of TCSC can be defined as
P I (3)
bk = a t X ck = 0
X ck
TCSC should be placed in a line having most negative sensitivity
index.
B. Objective function
Due to high cost of FACTS devices, it is necessary to use cost-
benefit analysis to analyze whether new FACTS device is cost
effective among several candidate locations where they are
actually installed.
The objective function for placement of TCSC will be
NG NG
Fig.1.Modeling of TCSC Minimize C
i =1
pi ( Pi )+ C qi (Qi ) + IC
i =1
s s
The real and reactive power injections at bus i and bus j are given
by [3], Where, IC is the installment cost of TCSC. The cost of
installation of TCSC devices has been mathematically formulated
and is given by,

IC = C TCSC S 1000 ( $ )
C TCSC = 0.0015 S 2 0.7130 S + 153.75($ / KVAR )
S = Q1 Q 2
CTCSC is the cost of TCSC devices in $/KVAR, S is the
operating range of TCSC in MVAR, Q1 is the reactive power flow
through the branch before TCSC installation and Q2 is the reactive
power flow through the branch after TCSC installation.
Generator Reactive Power support:
C qi ( Q i ) = C pi ( S G i m ax ) C p i ( S G2 i m ax Q i2 k i
Where, Cqi is the cost of the Reactive power rescheduling,
Cpi is the active power generation cost, SGimax is the nominal
apparent power of the generator and ki is an assumed profit
rate of the active power generation at bus i. Here ki is taken as
5%. Here SGimax=PGimax
Here minimization of generator cost is considering both
Fuel cost coefficients and emission coefficients.
C p i ( Pi ) = F ( Pi ) + E ( Pi )
Minimization of Fuel Cost:
F ( Pi ) = a i ( Pi ) 2 + bi ( Pi ) + C i
Cpi is the cost of the active power rescheduling according to
the bid functions submitted by the generators participating in
congestion management.
Minimization of Emission:
The total emission E(Pi)in (ton/hr) of atmospheric
pollutants such as sulpher oxides (SOX) and nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) caused by the operation of fossil fuelled thermal
generation can be expressed as
N
E ( Pi ) = 10 ( i + i ( Pi ) + i ( Pi )) + i exp( i ( Pi ))
2 2
i =1
Where i , i , i and i are coefficients of the ith generator
emission characteristics.
Subject to:
Power balance equation
PGmi i n PG i PGmi a x
Q Gmii n Q G i Q Gmia x
If TCSC is located in line between buses i and j, the power balance
equations in nodes i and j are given by
Pi ( , V ) PG i + PD i + Pi F = 0 , fo r n o d e i
P j ( , V ) PG j + PD j + P jF = 0 , fo r n o d e j
Q i ( , V ) Q G i + Q D i + Q iF = 0, fo r n o d e i
Q j ( , V ) Q G j + Q D j + Q Fj = 0, fo r n o d e j
Power generation limit
PGmi in PG i PGmi ax
Q Gmiin Q G i Q Gmiax
Bus voltage limit
V i m in V i V i m ax
im in i im ax
TCSC reactance limit
xcmin xc xcmax
This problem is solved using PSO, PSO TVIW and PSO TVAC.
3
1. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (PSO):
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is based on the collective
motion of a flock of particles: the particle swarm. In the simplest and
original version of PSO, each member of the particle swarm is moved
through a problem space by two elastic forces. One attracts it with
random magnitude to the best location so far encountered by the
particle. The other attracts it with random magnitude to the best
location encountered by any member of the swarm [21, 22]. PSO
consists of a swarm of particles and each particle flies through the
multi-dimensional search space with a velocity, which is constantly
updated by the particles previous best performance and by the
previous best performance of the particles neighbors. The position
and velocity of each particle are updated at each time step (possibly
with the maximum velocity being bounded to maintain stability) until
the swarm as a whole converges to an optimum. Particles update their
velocity and position through tracing two kinds of best value. One
is its personal best (pbest), which is the location of its highest fitness
value. In global version, another is the global best (gbest), which is
the location of overall best value, obtained by any particles in the
population. Particles update their positions and velocities according
to equation below equations.
Vid (t + 1) = Vid (t ) + 1rand1 ( pid (t ) xid (t )) + 2 rand2 ( pgd (t ) xid (t ))
x id (t + 1) = x id (t ) + vid (t + 1)
Here, Vd(t) is the velocity of dth dimension of the ith particle in the ith
iteration, xid(t) is the corresponding position and pid(t) and pgd(t) is
personal best and global best respectively. The variables is the
inertia weight, the parameters 1 a n d 2 are the accelerate
parameters, which respectively adjust the maximal steps particles
flying to the personal best and the global best, rand1 and rand2are
two random numbers in [0,1].
2. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION WITH TIME VARYING INERTIA
WEIGHT (PSO-TVIW):
However, for PSO-TVIW the velocity update equation is
modified by the construction factor C and the inertia weight w
is linearly decreasing as iteration grows.
vkpd+1 = C {w. v kpd + C1.rand1.( pbest pd X pd ) + C2 .rand2 .( gbestgd X pd ) }
w = ( wmax wmin ) .
( Kmax K ) + wmin
K max
2
C= ,
2 2 4
Where 4 .1 4 .2
3. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION WITH TIME VARYING
ACCELERATION COEFFICIENTS (PSO-TVAC:
PSO-TVAC is extended from TVIW. All coefficients
including inertia weight and acceleration coefficients are
varied with iterations. The velocity updating equation of PSO-
TVAC can be expressed as,
K
v kpd+1 = c w.v kpd + ( C1 f C1i ) + C1i .rand1 . ( pbest pd X pd )
K max
K
+ ( C2 f C 2i ) + C 2 i .rand 2 . ( gbest pd X pd )
K max
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To illustrate the efficiency of the proposed idea for Transmission
congestion Management, IEEE 30 bus system and IEEE-118 bus
system are used as test systems.
 4

IEEE-30 BUS SYSTEM: Table III:

The numerical data for IEEE-30 bus system is taken from [25]. It PARAMETERS VARIATION FOR ALL TECHNIQUES
consists of six generators and twenty four loads. Genco1 is slack bus. PSO-
It is adjusted to meet change in loss. The different combinations of Parameters CPSO PSO-TVAC
TVIW
market structures comprising pool model and mix of pool plus C1i=2.5
C1 2 2
bilateral and multilateral contracts taken for study are: C1F=0.2
P: Pool model without bilateral and multilateral contracts. C2i=2.5
C2 2 2
C1: Pool model with one bilateral contract between buses 3-25. C2F=0.2
C2: Pool model with two bilateral contracts between buses 3-25 and Wmin=0.4 Wmin=0.4
W 0.5
8-21. Wmax=0.9 WMAX=0.9
C3: Pool model with one multilateral contract between buses 3-25, C -- = 4.1 = 4.1
26.
C4: Pool model with one bilateral contract between bus 8-21and The TCSC control parameter is used to solve the congestion
multilateral contract between 3-25, 26. management for all transactions are listed in Table IV.
Because of these contracts congestion occurred between 1-2 & 2-6 Computation time for all transactions is also listed in Table
lines as shown in Table I. IV.
TABLE IV:
TCSC CONTROL PARAMETERS FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM

P C1 C2 C3 C4
XTCSC (P.U)
PSO 0.3482 0.2841 0.3106 0.3287 0.339
PSO-TVIW 0.2890 0.2367 0.2481 0.2523 0.2723
PSO-TVAC 0.2583 0.2142 0.2207 0.2388 0.2491
Computation PSO 111.49 103.61 105.56 107.41 109.17
Time (Secs) PSO-TVIW 110.20 103.92 106.99 107.21 108.07
PSO-TVAC 107.19 101.20 102.33 103.96 105.42

From the Table IV, the control parameter of TCSC is based on

PSO-TVAC is less than PSO for all transactions. PSO-TVAC
computation time is less than PSO. After placing TCSC in the line 6-
8, the power flow in congested lines are shown in Table V.
TABLE V:
CONGESTED LINES POWER FLOW AFTER PLACING TCSC

Congested Line Power flow (MW) Line Limit (MW)

1-2 0.9932
1.00
2-6 0.9980

After placing TCSC in line 6-8, Power flow Value of the

FIG.2. SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM OF IEEE-30 BUS SYSTEM congested line1-2 is 0.9792p.u and the value of line flow in line2-6 is
TABLE I 0.9801p.u. After congestion management GENCOs' cost and TCSC
CONGESTED LINE DETAILS FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM cost for all transactions is listed in Table VI.
TABLE VI:
Congested Line Power flow (MW) Line Limit (MW)
COST DETAILS FOR IEEE- 30 BUS SYSTEM AFTER PLACING TCSC
1-2 1.3748 1.00
2-6 1.546 1.00 Technique P C1 C2 C3 C4
Generator Cost PSO 2340.98 2331.82 2333.81 2336.00 2338.93
The sensitivities based on real power flow performance index with ($/hr) PSO-TVIW 2259.9 2167.90 2186.4 2203.8 2215.5
respect to TCSC control parameter has been computed and shown in PSO-TVAC 2120. 25 2106.54 2113.87 2115.66 2117.85
Table II. TCSC should be placed in a line having most negative TCSC Cost PSO 820.56 782.65 796.77 801.09 808.99
sensitivity index. From the Table, the placement of TCSC in line 6-8 ($/hr) PSO-TVIW 809.89 772.47 786.41 790.67 798.47
is optimal for reducing the PI and congestion relief. PSO-TVAC 778.25 751.04 756.46 767.51 772.93
TABLE II:
830 TCSC Cost PSO PSO-TVIW PSO-TVAC
SENSITIVITY INDICES FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM

FROM TO P C1 C2 C3 C4 810
5 7 -0.4521 -0.5983 -0.3981 -0.2904 -0.5621
Cost ($/hr)

6 8 -0.8696 -0.7432 -0.8662 -0.7093 -0.8213 790

12 15 -0.2378 -0.3143 -0.5894 -0.4729 -0.5598
14 15 -0.6529 -0.0018 -0.7142 -0.5109 -0.6731 770
21 22 -0.7721 -0.7021 -0.5583 -0.4670 -0.4390
28 27 0.7821 -0.4468 -0.7421 -0.4355 -0.3028 750

After selecting the optimum placement of TCSC for 730

Pool with all Transactions
congestion management, then the criteria is minimization of
P

C1

C2

C3

C4

TCSC cost using PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-TVAC. The

FIG.3.COST OF TCSC FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS
parameters used for PSO, PSO-TVIW, and PSO-TVAC to
solve minimization of TCSC cost is listed in Table III.
 5

The generator cost and investment cost of TCSC is less using sensitivity index. From the Table, the placement of TCSC in line 84-
PSO-TVAC compared to PSO as shown in Table V. Fig 3 explains 88 is optimal for reducing the PI and congestion relief. The TCSC
TCSC cost comparison using PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-TVAC. control parameters as shown in Table IX.
From the Fig 3, it is cleared that TCSC cost is less using PSO-TVAC TABLE VIII:
than PSO. Similarly, GENCOs' cost for all transactions after SENSITIVITY INDICES FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM
congestion management is listed in Fig 4. From the Fig 4, GENCOs'
cost is less using PSO-TVAC. Fig 5 explains the voltage profile at all FROM TO P C1 C2 C3 C4
buses after placing TCSC. 26 56 -0.4320 -0.5673 -0.4290 -0.3896 -0.6620
53 58 -0.5204 -0.4407 -0.2107 -0.1983 -0.4309
60 50 -0.3678 -0.4776 -0.3098 -0.4871 -0.3390
GENCOs' Cost PSO PSO-TVIW PSO-TVAC
49 72 -0.4470 -0.5205 -0.6200 -0.5341 -0.4980
2350
75 74 -0.3990 -0.4629 -0.5633 -0.5119 -0.4980
81 35 -0.4678 -0.4991 -0.5733 -0.5686 -0.4987
2275
84 88 -0.7156 -0.6399 -0.7102 -0.6420 -0.7892
Cost ($/hr)

2200
89 29 -0.6731 -0.5504 -0.5190 -0.2073 -0.1874
105 107 -0.4419 -0.5133 -0.2804 -0.1342 -0.2904
2125 113 114 -0.2294 -0.4187 -0.5920 -0.3876 -0.3294
98 119 -0.3387 -0.2151 -0.4820 -0.5639 -0.2876
2050
After selecting the optimum placement of TCSC, then the criteria
is minimization of TCSC cost using PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-
1975 Pool with all Transactions TVAC. The parameters used for PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-TVAC
are listed in Table III. The TCSC control parameter is used to solve
P

C1

C2

C3

C4

FIG.4.GENCOS' COST FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS the congestion management for all transactions are listed in Table IX.
Computation time for all transactions is also listed in Table IX.
1.03 PSO-TVAC PSO-TVIW PSO TABLE IX:
TCSC CONTROL PARAMETERS FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM
1
Technique P C1 C2 C3 C4
XTCSC (P.U) PSO 0.5938 0.5602 0.5739 0.5808 0.5822
Voltage (P.U)

0.97
PSO-TVIW 0.5283 0.4984 0.5106 0.5167 0.5180
0.94 PSO-TVAC 0.5004 0.4298 0.4569 0.4781 0.4872
Computation PSO 160.16 156.90 157.77 158.68 159.18
0.91 Voltage Profile Time (Secs) PSO-TVIW 151.83 148.74 149.56 150.42 150.90
PSO-TVAC 132.20 129.51 130.22 130.97 131.39
0.88
From the Table IV, the control parameter of TCSC is based on
0.85 PSO is less than PSO-TVAC for all transactions. PSO computation
time is less than PSO-TVAC. After placing TCSC in the line 6-8, the
Bus power flow in congested lines are shown in Table X.
1

11

16

21

26

FIG.5.VOLTAGE PROFILE FOR IEEE-30 BUS SYSTEM AFTER PLACING TCSC

TABLE X:
CONGESTED LINES POWER FLOW AFTER PLACING TCSC
IEEE-118 BUS SYSTEM:
Congested Line Power flow (MW) Line Limit (MW)
The numerical data for IEEE 118 bus system are taken from [25]. 80-77 0.9938
1.00
It consists of six generators and twenty four loads. Genco1 is slack 89-92 0.9981
bus. It is adjusted to meet change in loss. The different combinations
of market structures comprising pool model and mix of pool plus After placing TCSC in line 84-88, Power flow Value of the
bilateral and multilateral contracts taken for study are: congested line1-2 is 0.9769p.u and the value of line flow in line2-6 is
P: Pool model without bilateral and multilateral contracts. 0.9881p.u. After congestion management GENCOs' cost and TCSC
C1: Pool model with one bilateral contract between buses 49-57. cost for all transactions is listed in Table XI.
C2: Pool model with two bilateral contracts between buses 49-57 and TABLE XI:
77-92. COST DETAILS FOR IEEE- 30 BUS SYSTEM AFTER PLACING TCSC
C3: Pool model with one multilateral contract between buses 77-92,
86. Technique P C1 C2 C3 C4
C4: Pool model with one bilateral contract between bus 49-57 and Generator PSO 3414.7 3361.6 3378.9 3385.1 3397.3
multilateral contract between 77-92, 86. Cost ($/hr) PSO-TVIW 3394.9 3342.0 3359.3 3365.4 3377.5
PSO-TVAC 3308.9 3257.4 3274.2 3280.2 3292.0
Because of these contracts congestion occurred between 80-77 &
TCSC Cost PSO 1907.4 1874.0 1882.3 1895.8 1901.3
89-92lines as shown in table VII.
($/hr) PSO-TVIW 1880.5 1847.6 1855.8 1869.1 1874.5
TABLE VII PSO-TVAC 1811.7 1780.0 1787.9 1800.7 1805.9
CONGESTED LINE DETAILS FOR 30-BUS SYSTEM
The generator cost and cost of TCSC is less using PSO-TVAC
Congested Line Power flow (MW) Line Limit (MW) compared to PSO as shown in Table XI. Fig 6 explains TCSC cost
80-77 1.3748 1.00 comparison using PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-TVAC. From the Fig
89-92 1.546 1.00 6, it is cleared that TCSC cost is less using PSO-TVAC than PSO.
The sensitivities based on real power flow performance index with
respect to TCSC control parameter has been computed and shown in
Table VIII. TCSC should be placed in a line having most negative
 6

1930 TCSC Cost PSO PSO-TVIW PSO-TVAC REFERENCES

1895
[1] H. Besharat & S.A. Taher, Congestion management by determining
optimal location of TCSC in deregulated power systems, Electrical
Power and Energy Systems 30 (2008) 563-568
Cost ($/hr)

1860
[2] N. Acharya & N. Mithulananthan, Influence of TCSC on congestion
1825 and spot price in electricity market with bilateral contract, Electrical
Power System Research 77 (2007) pp 1010-1018
1790
[3] S.N. Pandey , S. Tapaswi & L. Srivastava, Integrated evolutionary
1755 neural network approach with distributed computing for congestion
management, Applied Soft Computing 10 (2010) pp 251-260
1720
Pool with all Transactions [4] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, Optimal location of FACTS devices for
congestion management, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 58 (2001) 7179.
P

C1

C2

C3

C4
[5] P. Preedavichit, S.C. Srivastava, Optimal reactive power dispatch
FIG.6.COST OF TCSC FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS considering FACTS devices, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 46 (1998) 251
257
Similarly, GENCOs' cost for all transactions after congestion [6] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, A new approach for placement of FACTS
management is listed in Fig 7. From the Fig 7, GENCOs' cost is less devices in open power markets, IEEE Power Eng. Rev. 21 (9) (2001)
using PSO-TVAC. Fig 8 explains the voltage profile at all buses after 5860.
placing TCSC. Voltage stability is improved after placing TCSC. [7] J. Hazra and A.K. Sinha, Congestion management using multi objective
particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, Issue 4,
3425 GENCOs' Cost PSO PSO-TVIW PSO-TVAC pp. 1726 1734, Nov. 2007.
3400 [8] C.Z. Karatekin and C. Uak, Sensitivity analysis based on transmission
line susceptances for congestion management, Electric Power Syst
3375
Research, vol. 78, Issue 9, pp. 1485-1493, Sept. 2008.
Cost ($/hr)

3350 [9] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui and A.J. Germond, Optimal location of

3325 multitype FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic
3300 algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 537-544, 2001.
[10] S.N. Singh and A.K. David, Optimal location of FACTS devices for
3275
congestion management, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 58,
3250 Issue 2, pp. 71-79, 21 June 2001.
3225
Pool with all Transactions
[11] G.B. Shrestha and W. Feng, Effects of series compensation on spot
price power markets, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 27, pp.
P

C1

C2

C3

C4

428436, 2005.
FIG.7.GENCOS' COST FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS [12] Besharat. H, Taher. S. A, Congestion management by determining
optimal location of TCSC in deregulated power systems, Electrical
1.15 PSO PSO-TVIW PSO-TVAC Power and Energy Systems, pp. 563568, vol. 30, 2008.
[13] Acharya. N, N. Mithulananthan, Locating series FACTS devices for
1.1 congestion management in deregulated electricity markets, Electric
Power Systems Research, pp. 352360, vol. 77, Sep. 2007.
[14] A. Berizzi, M. Delfanti, P. Marannino, M. S.Pasquadibisceglie, A.
Voltage (P.U)

1.05
Silvestri, Enhanced Security Constrained OPF with FACTS Devices
1 IEEE trans. Power Systems, vol. 20, pp. 1597-1604, Aug 2005.
[15] H. Mori, Y. Goto, A parallel Tabu search based method for determining
0.95 optimal allocation of FACTS in power systems, in: International
Voltage Profile Conference on Power System Technology Proceedings, vol. 2, 2000, pp.
1077 1082.
0.9
[16] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui, J. Germond, Optimal location of multi-type
FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic algorithms,
0.85 IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16 (3) (2001) 537544.
Bus [17] Kumar, A. and Parida, S., Combined optimal location of FACTS
1

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

91

1
10

11

controllers and loadability enhancement in competitive electricity

FIG.8.VOLTAGE PROFILE FOR IEEE-118 BUS SYSTEM AFTER PLACING TCSC
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper focuses on congestion management by optimal
placement of TCSC in Hybrid Electricity market. The investment
cost of TCSC and generator cost is minimized using Particle Swarm
Optimization with Time Varying Acceleration Coefficients (PSO-
TVAC) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Feasibility and
robustness of the proposed method is tested on IEEE 30 bus system
and IEEE 118 bus system. The results of case study is shown that,
PSO-TVAC would be an effective tool in handling transmission
congestion in deregulated environment and results in secure operating
condition. Results are compared with PSO, PSO-TVIW and PSO-
TVAC. Voltage stability is also improved after placing TCSC.
Computation time for PSO-TVAC is lesser than the PSO. The
proposed model can be extended to any practical network.
Congestion cost is efficiently reduced with generator reactive power
support.
markets using MILP, IEEE Power Engineering society General
Meeting,Vol.1,2005, pp. 670-677.
[18] Sharma, Ashwani Kumar, "Optimal Number and Location of TCSC and
Loadability Enhancement in Deregulated Electricity Markets Using
MINLP," International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems,
Vol. 5, issue 1, Article 6, 2006.
[19] Ongsakul, W. , Jirapong, P., Optimal allocation of FACTS devices to
enhance total transfer capability using evolutionary programming,
IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, ISCAS, vol.5,
May 2005, pp. 4175-4178.
[20] M. Saravanan, S.MaryRajaSlochanal, P.Venkatesh, J.Prince Stephen
Abraham, Application of particle swarm optimization technique for
optimal location of FACTS devices considering cost of installation and
system loadability," International Journal of Electric Power Systems
Research, vol.77, March 2007, pp.276-283.
[21] A. Ratnaweera, S.K. Halgamuge, H.C. Watson,Self-organizing
hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time varying acceleration
coefficients, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput, 8pp.240255, Jun 2004.
[22] Y. Shi, R.C. Eberhart, Empirical study of particle swarm optimization,
in: Proceeding of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3,
pp. 1945-1950, 1999.
[23] A. Ratnaweera, S.K. Halgamuge, H.C. Watson, Self-organizing
hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration
 7

coefficients, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation Vol.8,

pp.240-255, 2004.
[24] Chang, Y.-C. Chang, R.-F. Hsiao, T.-Y. Lu, C.-N., Transmission
system loadability enhancement study by ordinal optimization method,
IEEE trans. on Power Systems, vol. PP, issue 99, May 2010, pp.1-9.
[25] http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/

BIOGRAPHIES
Manasarani Mandala Currently she is Research Scholar in
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, India. Her research interests include Power System
Deregulation, Power System Stability, Optimization techniques
and FACTs devices.

C.P. Gupta (M03) received the B.E. degree from Malaviya

Regional Engineering College, Jaipur, India, in 1987, the M.E.
degree from the University of Roorkee, India, in 1990, and the
Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur,
India, in 2001.
Currently, he is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, India. From 2001 to 2004, he was a Research Associate and, in
2005, he was an Academic Visitor in the School of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, University of Manchester (formerly the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology), Manchester, U.K. His
research interests include voltage sag analysis, voltage instability analysis and
power system dynamics.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)