IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.
2, MAY 2003
Enhancement of Linear ATC Calculations by the
Incorporation of Reactive Power Flows
Santiago Grijalva, Member, IEEE, Peter W. Sauer, Fellow, IEEE, and James D. Weber, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Fast, accurate algorithms to compute network ca-
pabilities are indispensable for transfer-based electricity markets.
Most transfer studies involve contingencies and multipattern sce-
narios that often can only be performed in reasonable time with the
use of linear methods. One of the limitations of linear ATC is the
error produced by neglecting the effect of reactive power flows in
line loading. This paper describes a fast algorithm to incorporate
this effect. The estimation of the line post-transfer complex flow is
based on circle equations and a megavar-corrected megawatt limit.
The method can be easily integrated into existing linear ATC soft-
ware because the computation remains based on active power dis-
tribution factors. The algorithm is illustrated in a small example
and the error correction demonstrated for transfers in larges sys-
tems.
Index Terms—Linear ATC, reactive power.
I. INTRODUCTION
A VAILABLE transfer capability (ATC) determines the size
of the largest transfer that can be implemented in a certain
direction across the power grid without violating security
constraints [1], [2]. While strictly speaking this should be
considered total transfer capability (TTC), we assume here for
simplicity that the other components related to ATC are zero.
The determination of ATC requires the continuation version
of power flow, steady-state stability, voltage stability, and
transient stability simulations. The ATC study starts with a base
case that corresponds to an initial operating point computed
from a power flow solution using usual data specifications at
PQ buses, PV buses, and a slack bus . The transfer direction
is then specified by means of participation factors of source
and sink buses. In the simplest case, this would be a real power
transaction to take place between bus and bus while holding
all other power flow injections fixed at their base case levels.
Although the maximum secure transfer should be determined
using full nonlinear computations (considering both static and
dynamic constraints), ATC studies often involve contingencies
and multipattern scenarios, making this a formidable task for
most real systems [3]–[7].
This paper does not address any issues associated with at-
tempts to include dynamic constraints. Rather it focuses on a
Manuscript received September 25, 2002. This work was supported in part by
the NSF Grant NSF EEC 96-15792, the University of Illinois Power Affiliates
Program, the Grainger endowments to the University of Illinois, and the Power
Systems Engineering Research Center (PSERC).
S. Grijalva and P. W. Sauer are with the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
61801 USA (e-mail: santiago@powerworld.com; sauer@ece.uiuc.edu).
J. D. Weber is with PowerWorld Corporation, Urbana, IL 61801 USA (e-mail:
weber@powerworld.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.810902
0885-8950/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
619
major simplification that has been in use for many years for
studies where fast solutions are sought for the case involving
static constraints only. This simplification is the use of linear
methods to compute the line flow changes in response to bus in-
jections (and in response to contingencies such as line outages)
[8]–[11]. These linear methods introduce a number of potential
errors in determining the ATC. These errors can be broadly clas-
sified into three categories
a) neglecting the nonlinear nature of real power flows;
b) ignoring reactive power flows;
c) ignoring voltage levels.
The first potential source of error includes the issue of requiring
a suitable margin to voltage collapse. Thus, the traditional linear
power flow solution is at the opposite extreme from the full non-
linear power flow analysis. This paper proposes an improved
fast method that is between traditional linear methods and full
nonlinear methods. It addresses the first two sources of error by
extending the preliminary results obtained in reference [12]. A
more detailed version of these results is given in [13].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II
provides a background on linear ATC and line complex flows.
Section III describes the new method, its incorporation into ex-
isting linear ATC functions, and discusses the limitations of the
algorithm. Section IV illustrates the method in a three-bus case
and in large systems. Section V states the conclusions of this
work.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Linear Static ATC
Based on the “dc” power flow model, linear ATC calculations
typically assume a lossless system, where changes in the line
real power flows are linearly related to changes in the net real
power injections. For illustration, we assume a point-to-point
transfer from the slack bus , to any bus , and we would like
to maximize this transfer without exceeding the flow limits of
any line or transformer. The key to the linear power flow solu-
tion is the use of “power transfer distribution factors” (PTDFs),
expressed here as sensitivities of line real power flows to bus
injections
(1)
These PTDFs can be determined as linearized sensitivities eval-
uated at the initial operating point, or approximated as con-
stants using only network reactances. These PTDFs are essen-
tially current dividers in linear circuit theory. As such, they are
 620 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003

large-change sensitivities and can be used to predict the change

in the line flow (line - ) due to a transfer (bus to bus ) as

(2)

Note that is the amount of transferred power

from to . For a given positive line flow limit , assumed
equal to the line MVA rating, and an initial positive line flow
, the size of the transfer that drives the line to its limit is Fig. 1. Transmission line:  -model.
equal to
linear ATC, the previous equation represents a circle in the
plane, with center at
(3)
.
(8)
In order to determine ATC, the minimum value of among and radius equal to
all lines in the system is determined
(9)
all lines (4)
Here, denotes a constant circle parameter. Incorporating (8)
If contingency conditions are analyzed, outage transfer distri-
and (9) into (7), we obtain
bution factors (OTDFs), which capture the effect of the transfer
and the outages in line flows, are used instead of PTDFs. Note
(10)
that it is the linear relation between the transfer and the line
flows that makes linear ATC the fastest algorithm for transfer Since, in general, the complex flow at the sending and re-
studies. To describe the impact of neglecting reactive power ceiving ends of a transmission line are different, there is a cor-
flows, we now present a section on line complex flows. responding -end circle given by the equation
B. Line Complex Flows (11)
Consider the transmission line -model shown in Fig. 1.
The complex power flow from bus to bus (at ) is equal to where in general and . The radii
of the two circles though have the same value.
As the transfer increases, the flow in the line varies but all
feasible operating points in the - plane lie on the oper-
ating circle given by (10). On the other hand, in this plane, the
MVA rating of the line can be represented by a circle with center
at the origin and radius equal to the thermal limit . This
(5) is referred to here as the limiting circle. Given an initial power
system state without overloaded lines, the ATC calculation must
where the voltage magnitudes , , and angles , , are the determine the maximum amount for a transfer to such
state variables. In this equation, is the magnitude and is that the flows lie inside the limiting circle (i.e., for
the angle of the admittance . all - lines (ends and ) in the system.
We are interested in a relation between the line active and re- Typical operating and limiting circles are illustrated in Fig. 2.
active power flows as a transfer takes place across the system. The meaning of the point is discussed in Section III.
Separating the real and imaginary components of (5) and rear-
ranging terms, we have III. INCORPORATION OF REACTIVE FLOWS
A. Maximum Complex Flow and Linear ATC
Since the transmission line complex flow is constrained to
be on the operating circle and inside the limiting circle, the
(6) maximum complex flow of the line - corresponds to point
Taking the square of both sides and adding in Fig. 2. Depending on the sign of the distribu-
tion factor two different solutions for can be found.
In order to compute and the following system of
equations must be solved:
(7)

If and remain nearly constant during the transfer (i.e.,

), which is an assumption used in (12)

Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
GRIJALVA et al.: ENHANCEMENT OF LINEAR ATC CALCULATIONS BY THE INCORPORATION OF REACTIVE POWER FLOWS 621

Fig. 2. Operating and limiting circles. Fig. 3. Three-bus system base case.

Expanding the first equation and subtracting the second one we of active power distribution factors. Note that although can
obtain be assumed to be equal to , might be different from
since in general . Thus, the computation of
(15) and (16) must consider each line end.
(13)
Note that given the base case power flow solution, the
maximum active flow values, , are computed once and
where . Substituting back into the they remain constant during the ATC study. This is possible
limiting circle equation the following quadratic expression in since the assumption of constant voltages, which is required in
is obtained linear ATC, makes these values operating point and direction
independent.
The process of computing linear ATC including the effect of
reactive flows is summarized as follows
a) compute distribution factors ;
(14) b) compute using (15) and (16);
c) replace by and compute the necessary transfer
Defining the corresponding constant coefficients to overload each line end using (3);
d) obtain the minimum among all line ends.
Since the incorporation of reactive flows into the algorithm re-
sides in computing a new line flow limit, all of the advantages
(15) of the linear ATC method are preserved.

B. Limitations of Linear ATC With Reactive Flows

the solution for the maximum complex flow is obtained as
The assumptions for traditional linear ATC calculations
correspond to those of the dc power flow. The algorithm de-
(16) scribed in Section III-A utilizes these same assumptions, which
includes the assumption of nearly-constant voltages during the
transfer. Note that the dc power flow assumptions are more
The sign in the previous equation is chosen to be positive if the restrictive than nearly-constant voltages since they also include
PTDF of line - is positive and negative otherwise. small angles and negligible resistances. Consequently, in
In order to incorporate the maximum active flow in ATC, every case where linear ATC is applicable, so is the developed
the only change required is to replace by . This differs algorithm. Thus, the limitations of the above method should be
from linear ATC, where was assumed to be equal to the no worse than traditional linear ATC.
MVA rating of the line. represents a better approximation
to the actual maximum active line flow due to the transfer by IV. EXAMPLES
considering the reactive power component.
The first step to determining is to obtain the circle param- A. Simulation of a Small System
eters , and . Note that these parameters appear Consider the three-bus system in Fig. 3. The line reactances
in (5) as part of the equations of the pre-transfer line flows of are 0.9, 0.37, and 0.28 p.u., and the line MVA ratings are 1.0, 1.3,
the base case power flow solution. Thus, the computation of the and 1.4 p.u., for lines 1–2, 1–3, and 2–3, respectively. The initial
coefficients , , and using (15) is straightforward and so is operating point shown is set up with voltages equal to 1.0, 1.0,
the computation of with (16). The method captures the be- and 1.04 p.u. for buses 1, 2, and 3. Reactive power generation
havior of reactive power for large transfers and retains the use at every bus is unlimited.

Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 622
TABLE I
ATC RESULTS FOR THE THREE-BUS SYSTEM
Transactions between areas 1 to 2, 1 to 3, and 2 to 3
(seller/buyer) were simulated across this system. ATC was
computed by three methods
a) sequential full AC power flow, i.e., the actual ATC;
b) linear ATC, as described in Section II-A;
c) linear ATC with reactive power flows, as described in Sec-
tion III-A.
The results are shown in per unit MVA in Table I.
Corresponding errors are computed for methods b. and c. with
respect to the actual ATC values.
The line data include the line MVA rating , the max-
imum active flow , and the linearized distribution factors
computed from the initial ac power flow solution. The results
are organized by transfer between areas 1–2, 1–3, and 2–3. For
each direction, the transfer values that overload the lim-
iting line in the system are shown. For the transfer from area 1
(seller) to area 2 (buyer), the limiting element is line 3-1 (line
end 3), which reaches its thermal limit with a transfer of 2.03
p.u., or 203 MW. This is the exact ATC value for this partic-
ular transfer. The traditional linear ATC method does predict the
same limiting line, with a maximum transfer estimate of 2.203
(8.5% error). The proposed reactive method also predicts the
same limiting line, with a maximum transfer estimate of 2.096
(3.3% error). This reduction of error is the benefit claimed by
the results of this proposed method.
For the transfer from area 1 (seller) to area 3 (buyer), the lim-
iting element is again line 3-1 (line end 3), which reaches its
thermal limit with a transfer of 1.63 p.u., or 163 MW. This is
the exact ATC value for this particular transfer. The traditional
linear ATC method does predict the same limiting line, with a
maximum transfer estimate of 1.696 (4.0% error). The proposed
reactive method also predicts the same limiting line, with a max-
imum transfer estimate of 1.614 ( 1.0 error). As before, this
reduction of error is the benefit claimed by the results of this
proposed method.
For the transfer from area 2 (seller) to area 3 (buyer), the lim-
iting element is line 3-2 (line end 3), which reaches its thermal
limit with a transfer of 1.63 p.u., or 163 MW. This is the exact
ATC value for this particular transfer. The traditional linear ATC
method does predict the same limiting line, with a maximum
transfer estimate of 1.700 (4.3% error). The proposed reactive
method also predicts the same limiting line, with a maximum
transfer estimate of 1.629 (virtually 0% error). As before, this
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
Fig. 4. Error results for the WSCC system.
reduction of error is the benefit claimed by the results of this
proposed method.
B. Large Systems
The implementation of the algorithm described in Section III
for real cases requires modeling system devices, such as trans-
formers with tap changer. Equations similar to (10) and (11) are
needed for that purpose. These are available in [13].
The method was first tested on the summer 2001 WSCC case
from the FERC’s 715 filings. Forty-two transfers across the
British Columbia Hydro, Bonneville Power Administration, and
Pacific Gas & Electric control areas were simulated. The simu-
lation did not include contingency sets, but considered relevant
contingency conditions as base cases. The internal model had
7119 buses, and 9630 lines and transformers. Total generation
was 120 GW. The directions were chosen from a single bus in
one area to another and between buses of a common control
area. The base case presented no thermal violations and had 24
elements loaded more than 90%.
The computation did not consider elements with PTDFs
below 0.5%. ATC was computed for each transfer using three
methods: sequential full ac power flow (exact solution), linear
ATC, and linear ATC with the effect of reactive power flows.
The sequential power flow computation included a full AC
model with active controls (e.g., phase-shifters, tap changer
control, and generator reactive power limits). For each case, the
first transfer limit was recorded.
Fig. 4 shows the error obtained with linear ATC and linear
ATC with reactive power flows with respect to the exact full
nonlinear solution. The mean value of the absolute error was
5.61% for the linear ATC and 2.15% for linear ATC with reac-
tive flows.
In all cases, the reactive approximation method predicted
smaller ATC values than the linear method. This was expected
since both simulations use the same PTDFs but the incor-
poration of reactive power flows accounts for the reactive
component.
Although in most cases, the error was smaller when the effect
of reactive flows was included, sometimes the linear method
GRIJALVA et al.: ENHANCEMENT OF LINEAR ATC CALCULATIONS BY THE INCORPORATION OF REACTIVE POWER FLOWS
Fig. 5. Error results for the NYISO system.
alone was more accurate (e.g., transfers 1 and 9). This occurs
in cases where a transfer reduces the reactive flow in the lim-
iting line and improves local voltages, or where the limiting line
PTDF decreases with the transfer. In those cases, the reactive ap-
proximation underestimates . Syst., vol. 15, pp. 1112–1116, Aug. 2000.
A second simulation was run over the FERC summer peak
case of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO).
This case has about 40 000 buses covering most of the Eastern
Interconnection and includes more than 6,000 generating units
and 139 control areas. Fifty ATC directions were studies across
different control areas in the NYISO. The simulation did not
include contingency sets, but severe contingencies were imple-
mented and assumed to be base case conditions. This effectively
incorporated further stress in the system and allowed identifica-
tion of the behavior of the developed algorithm in a wide range
of system operating scenarios.
As in the previous case, in the NYISO system, the computa-
tion included only elements with PTDF’s larger than 0.5%. ATC
was computed using the sequenctial full ac power flow, linear
ATC and linear ATC with the effect of reactive power. Fig. 5
shows the error obtained with linear ATC and linear ATC with
reactive flows with respect to the exact solution. In this case,
the mean value of the absolute error was 6.41% for the linear
ATC and 1.68% for linear ATC with reactive flows. Again, the
reactive approximation resulted in smaller values of ATC with
respect to linear ATC for every transfer.
Note in Figs. 4 and 5 that the linear ATC method tends to
overestimate ATC. The reactive flow method reduced this bias,
as well as the error dispersion.
The results in the previous examples demonstrate that the re-
active power approximation provides a consistent and signif-
icant reduction in the error of linear ATC. It also shows that
disregarding the effect of reactive power flows can be a large
component of the errors in linear ATC calculations.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The results obtained in this paper show that incorporating
the effect of reactive power flows in transmission elements re-
sults in significant error reduction in linear ATC. The method is
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
623
based on a megavar-corrected megawatt limit, which captures
the change in reactive power flow as the active power flow in the
line increases due to large transfers. This limit is both operating
point and direction independent and is inexpensively obtained
from the base case solution. The method can be easily incor-
porated into existing linear ATC software since it only requires
replacing the line MVA ratings by the new megawatt limit.
The assumptions used in the algorithm are based on those of
linear ATC and thus the new method can be applied together
with linear ATC, including simultaneous transactions. Further
work will examine the potential use of other features of this
algorithm to detect complete failure of the linear method due
to voltage collapse phenomena.
REFERENCES
[1] “NERC transmission transfer capability task force,” in Available
Transfer Capability Definitions and Determination. Princeton, NJ:
North American Electric Reliability Council, 1996.
[2] P. W. Sauer, “Alternatives for calculating transmission reliability margin
(TRM) in available transfer capability (ATC),” in Proc. Thirty-First
Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Sys. Sci., vol. III, Kona, HI, Jan. 6–9, 1998, p.
89.
[3] G. C. Ejebe, J. G. Waight, M. Santos-Nieto, and W. F. Tinney, “Fast
calculation of linear available transfer capability,” IEEE Trans. Power
[4] M. Pavella, D. Ruiz-Vega, J. Giri, and R. Avila-Rosales, “An integrated
scheme for on-line static and transient stability constrained ATC calcu-
lations,” in IEEE Power Eng. Soc., Summer Meeting, vol. 1, 1999, pp.
273–276.
[5] S. Repo, “Real-time transmission capacity calculation in voltage sta-
bility limited power systems,” in Proc. Bulk Power Syst. Dyn. Control
IV-Restructuring, Santorini, Greece, Aug. 24–28, 1998.
[6] M. H. Gravener and C. Nwankpa, “Available transfer capability and first
order sensitivity,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 512–518, May
1999.
[7] V. Ajjarapu and C. Christy, “The continuation power flow: A tool for
steady state voltage stability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7,
pp. 416–423, Feb. 1992.
[8] G. T. Heydt, Computer Analysis Methods for Power Systems. New
York, NY: Macmillan, 1986.
[9] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenburg, Power Generation, Operation, and
Control. New York, NY: Wiley, 1996.
[10] B. Stott and J. L. Marinho, “Linear programming for power system
network security applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol.
PAS-98, pp. 837–848, May–June 1979.
[11] G. L. Landgren and S. W. Anderson, “Simultaneous power interchange
capability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-92, pp.
1973–1986, Nov.–Dec. 1973.
[12] S. Grijalva and P. W. Sauer, “Reactive power considerations in linear
ATC computation,” in Proc. 32nd Annu. HI Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., HI,
1999, HICSS-32, pp. 1–11.
[13] S. Grijalva, “Complex Flow-Based Non-Linear ATC Screening,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 2002.
Santiago Grijalva (M’03) received the electrical en-
gineer degree from the Escuela Politécnica Nacional
(EPN)-Ecuador in 1994, the M.S. Certificate in in-
formation systems from the Escuela Politécnica del
Ejército (ESPE)-Ecuador in 1997, and the M.S. de-
gree in electrical engineering in 1999 from the Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is cur-
rently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the Power and En-
ergy Systems Program of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
From 1995 to 1997, he was with the Ecuadorian National Center for Energy
Control (CENACE) as EMS Engineer and Manager of the Software Department.
 624
Peter W. Sauer (S’73–M’77–F’93) received the B.S.
degree in electrical engineering from the University
of Missouri at Rolla, in 1969, and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from Purdue Uni-
versity, West Lafayette, IN, in 1974 and 1977, respec-
tively.
He has been on the faculty at The University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 1977 where
he teaches courses and directs research on power
systems and electric machines. From August 1991
to August 1992 he served as the Program Director
for Power Systems in the Electrical and Communication Systems Division of
the National Science Foundation in Washington D.C.
Authorized licensed use limited to: JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. Downloaded on January 02,2022 at 05:28:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 2, MAY 2003
James D. Weber (S’91–M’00) received the B.S.
degree in electrical engineering from the University
of Wisconsin—Platteville in 1995, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois in 1997
and 1999, respectively.
He is currently with PowerWorld Corporation,
Urbana, IL, specializing in developing software,
including PowerWorld Simulator, for the electric
utility industry. He was a summer intern at Wisconsin
Power and Light Company, Madison, WI, in 1994
and 1995, respectively.