Paper ID: 230
An Approach for Optimal Placement of UPFC to
Enhance Voltage Stability Margin under
Contingencies
Sreekanth Reddy Donapati and M.K.Verma
Abstract— This paper proposes a sensitivity based technique
for optimal placement of Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
to enhance voltage stability margin under contingencies. The
sensitivity of system loading factor with respect to the reactive
power flowing through lines computed for the system intact case
and critical contingency cases have been used to decide optimal
location for the placement of UPFC. The proposed sensitivity
factor has been derived from the reactive power flow balance
equation. The effectiveness of the proposed method for the
placement of UPFC in voltage stability margin enhancement has
been validated on a practical 75 bus Indian system representing
Uttar Pradesh State Power Corporation Network.
I. INTRODUCTION
N recent years an instability usually termed voltage
I instability has been responsible for several major
network collapses world-wide [1]. The actual cases of
blackouts characterized by voltage depressions reported in the
literature indicate that standard practice procedures such as
transformer tap-changing, capacitor switching, synchronous
condenser adjustment, and load shedding may aggravate an
already unstable voltage profile [2]. The problem of voltage
instability which may sometimes result into voltage collapse
in the system, has become a matter of great concern to the
utilities in view of its prediction, prevention and necessary
corrections to ensure a stable operation.
The advent of Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS)
Controllers [3] has created new opportunities for increasing
power system stability margin including voltage stability
margin. However, due to high cost and, for maximum
enhancement in voltage stability margin, these are to be
optimally placed in the system. A linearized dynamical
analysis utilizing bus participation factors corresponding to the
critical eigen value has been suggested in [4] for Static VAR
Compensator (SVC) placement. This method used modal
transformation considering only Q-V Jacobian and ignores
P-V coupling. However, this assumption may not be true near
saddle-node-bifurcation point (maximum loadability point).
____________________________
Sreekanth Reddy Donapati (email: shrykanth@gmail.com) and
M.K.Verma (e-mail: mkverma.eee@itbhu.ac.in) are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu
University,Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Reference [5] has suggested a method to determine critical
voltage bus that needs Q-support and critical angle bus
needing P-support based on the largest entry in the left and the
right eigen vectors corresponding to zero eigen value at the
voltage collapse point. The critical voltage bus has been
considered for SVC placement. The placement of Thyristor
Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC) has been considered
in a main line feeding the most critical angle bus. However, no
specific criterion has been developed for identification of the
main line. An approach based on sensitivity of FACTS device
control parameters with respect to reduction in real power
flow performance index has been suggested [6] to enhance
security of the power system. The impact of Static
Compensator (STATCOM) on the system loading margin
enhancement has been presented in [7]. However, no specific
criterion has been suggested to find optimal location for the
placement of STATCOM. Identification of the most critical
bus and line using extended voltage phasor approach has been
suggested in [8] for placement of SVC, TCSC and
STATCOM. The eigen values of the system at the maximum
loading condition have been examined with and without these
controllers. An algorithm for optimum allocation of reactive
power in AC–DC system using FACTS devices, with an
objective of improving the voltage profile of the system, has
been presented in [9]. However, improvement in voltage
profile may not always be helpful in enhancing voltage
stability margin. Reactive power spot price index has been
proposed in [10] to determine the optimal location of SVC in
the power system. SVC placement by this method results in
enhancement of the system loading margin for intact case as
well as critical contingency cases. Placement of multiple
FACTS controllers, such as combination of SVC and TCSC,
has been suggested in [11] using a genetic algorithm to
enhance loading margin under severe contingencies. However,
results presented in [11] show smaller enhancement in loading
margin using SVC-TCSC combination as compared to use of
only SVC. This may be due to non-optimal placement of the
TCSC in the system. In [12], power system stability is used as
an index for optimal allocation of SVCs to enhance voltage
stability. The combination of static and dynamic participation
factors of lines to system loadability has been utilized in [13]
to decide optimal line for TCSC placement. An approach
based on Benders decomposition technique has been proposed
in [14], for optimal placement of SVC to increase loading
margin. This problem is formulated as a nonlinear
programming problem that includes binary decisions, i.e.,
variables to decide the placement of the SVC. A fuzzy-logic
based control utilizing multiple FACTS controllers has been
suggested in [15] for efficient voltage regulation under II. UPFC MODEL
contingencies. The paper claims additional benefit of In the present work, UPFC has been represented by steady-
enhancement in voltage stability margin. However, control of state injection model [19],[25]. The UPFC consists of two
bus voltages may not always enhance the maximum switching converters operated from a common DC link, as
loadability of the system. SVC placement based on normal shown in figure-1 [26]. In this figure, Converter 2 performs
forms of diffeomorphism has been considered in [16] to the main function of the UPFC by injecting an AC voltage
enhance voltage stability of power systems. Nonlinear bus with controllable magnitude and phase angle in series with the
voltage participation factors has been used in this analysis, by transmission line. The basic function of Converter 1 is to
considering terms up to second order derivatives in the supply or absorb the active power demanded by Converter 2 at
Taylor’s series expansion. Decision Trees have been applied the common DC link. This is represented by the current, Ip.
in [17] to find out the effective location of series compensator Converter 1 can also generate or absorb controllable reactive
to alleviate power system voltage instability. power and provide independent shunt reactive compensation
Out of different types of FACTS controllers, Unified Power for the line. This is represented by the current, Iq.
Flow Controller (UPFC) seems to be more effective in voltage
stability enhancement [18] due to its ability to control series
and shunt variables, simultaneously. The selection of optimal
bus based on combination of continuation power flow and
optimal power flow for the placement of UPFC has been
suggested in [19]. However, no specific criterion has been
proposed for the selection of optimal line. The sensitivity of
loading factor with respect to reactive power generation at
buses and reactance of the lines has been proposed in [18] to
decide optimal location for the placement of Static Var
Compensator (SVC) and TCSC, respectively. Two sets of
sensitivity factors have been utilized together to optimally
place the UPFC. The criterion for placement of UPFC Figure-1: UPFC schematic diagram
suggested in [18] has ignored phase-shifter action of UPFC
which may lead to inaccurate results. An voltage stability L The UPFC circuit arrangement has been shown in figure-2.
index of load buses in coordination with minimum singular The series converter is represented by an AC voltage source in
value has been proposed in [20]. The index has been computed series with a reactance Xs as shown in figure-2
to identify optimal location of UPFC for improving system
security. A linear programming based optimal power flow
algorithm for the placement of UPFC has been proposed in
[21] to reduce overloads and voltage violations. However,
reduction of loads and voltage violations may not always be
helpful in improving voltage stability margin. Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) technique has been used [22] to achieve
maximum system loadability with minimum cost of
installation. Particle swarm optimization technique has been
employed in [23] to maximize the loadability of transmission
system using Unified Power Flow Controller under line Figure-2: UPFC circuit arrangement
outages. Optimal placement of UPFC based on evolutionary
programming has been suggested in [24] to enhance maximum The series voltage source Vs is controllable in magnitude
loadability of the system.
and phase i.e:
The work on UPFC placement has mainly concentrated to
see its impact for the system intact case and under line outage Vs = r Vi e jγ (1)
cases. However, outage of some of the generators may also where, 0 < r < rmax and 0 < γ < 2π
cause voltage instability in the power system. In this paper a
sensitivity based approach has been presented to study impact The steady-state injection model of UPFC has been derived
of UPFC placement in loading margin enhancement under from figure-2 [19] and has been shown in figure-3. In figure -3
critical contingencies considering line as well as generator UPFC has been represented as controllable loads connected at
outage cases. The effectiveness of the proposed method of the two ends of the line.
UPFC placement has been established on a practical 75-bus
Indian system representing Uttar Pradesh State Power
Corporation Network.

Figure-3: UPFC injection model
III. METHODOLOGY
The proposed sensitivity based approach for determination
of the optimal location of UPFC is described below:
The reactive power balance equation at bus-i can be given
by:
QG i − ( QD ib + λ K Di S Δ base sin φ i )
n
= Q ik + ∑ V i V j Yij sin (δ i − δ j − θ ij )
j =1
≠k
where,
QGi = Reactive power generation at bus –i
QDib = Reactive power demand at bus-i at the base case
operating point
Qik = Reactive power flowing from bus-i to bus-k
λ = Loading factor common to all the buses
KDi= Constant multiplier showing the rate of change of load
at the ith bus
S Δbase =Mega Volt Ampere (MVA) base used for scaling to
equivalent MVAR load increase.
Φi = power factor angle of the increased load at ith bus
Vi ∠δi = Complex voltage at bus –i
Yij ∠ = Gij + jBij = ij th element of the bus admittance
B
∂λ
The sensitivity factor , which relates changes in
∂Qik
loading factor with respect to change in reactive power
flowing from bus-i to bus-k, can be computed using (3) for
each of the lines under system intact case and critical
contingency cases. Each line is having two such sensitivity
∂λ ∂λ
values ( and ). Based on maximum absolute value
∂Qik ∂Qki
of sensitivity factors computed for system intact case and
critical contingency cases, priority lines for the placement of
UPFC have been determined. Depending upon magnitude of
∂λ ∂λ
and corresponding to priority lines, bus-i or bus-
∂Qik ∂Qki
k can be considered as priority buses. The loading margin (the
distance between the base case operating point and the nose
point) can be computed after UPFC placement at each of the
candidate locations for the system intact case and critical
(2)
contingency cases. The combination of priority line and
priority bus producing maximum enhancement in loading
margin for majority of the critical contingencies has been
selected as the optimal site for UPFC placement.
Since voltage instability occurs at the maximum loadability
∂λ
point, the sensitivities have been calculated for each
∂Q
ik
of the lines at a stressed point close to the maximum
loadability point. The partial derivatives ∂Vi/∂QGi, ∂δi/∂QGi,
(i = 1…n) in (4) & (6) can be derived for different buses from
the inverse Jacobian matrix of the full Newton Raphson Load
Flow (NRLF) in polar Form. An additional criterion for
optimal placement of the UPFC in this work has been that
UPFC should not be placed at generator buses.

The placement of UPFC is a planning issue where, accuracy

matrix is important and computational speed is insignificant.
n= Total number of the buses in the system Therefore, critical contingencies have been identified based on
Differentiating equation (2) with respect to Qik provides the post-contingency loading margins computed using
expression for the sensitivity factor, continuation power flow method [27]. In order to obtain
loading margins, real power generations, real and reactive
∂λ
= Y −1 [ Z −1 ( 1 − X ) − 1 ] (3) power demands have been varied as per following:
∂Qik PGi = PGib (1 + λ ) (7)
where, where
⎧⎡ ∂V j ∂Vi ⎤ ⎫ PGi = Real power generation at bus-i
⎪V
n ⎢ i ∂QG
+V j ⎥ Yij sin ( δi −δ j −θij ) ⎪ PGib = Real power generation at bus-i at the base case
⎪⎣ ∂QGi ⎦ ⎪
∑
i
X= ⎨ ⎬ (4) operating point.
⎡ ∂δ ⎤
j =1 ⎪
≠ k ⎪ +Vi V j Yij cos( δi − δ j −θij ) ⎢
∂δi
−
j ⎪
⎥⎪ PDi = PDib (1 + λ ) (8)
⎩ ⎣ ∂QGi ∂QGi ⎦⎭ where
Y = K Di S Δbase sin φ i (5) PDi = Real power demand at bus-i
∂Qik ⎡ ∂Vk ∂Vi ⎤
PDib = Real power demand at bus-i at the base case
Z= = ⎢Vi +Vk ⎥ Yik sin (δi −δ j −θij ) operating point
∂QGi ⎣ ∂QGi ∂QGi ⎦
(6) QDi = QDib (1 + λ ) (9)
⎡ ∂δ ∂δ ⎤
+Vi V j Yik cos(δi −δ j −θik ) ⎢ i − k ⎥ where
⎣ ∂QGi ∂QGi ⎦ QDi =Reactive power demand at bus-i
 the severe outage cases. Hence, line 29-38 towards bus 29 was
IV. CASE STUDIES considered as the optimal location for UPFC placement.

TABLE I
The proposed method of placement of UPFC controller has
been tested on a practical 75 bus Indian system representing ABSOLUTE VALUE OF ∂λ FOR TWO MOST SENSITIVE
Uttar Pradesh State Power Corporation Network. ∂Qik
The 75 bus Indian system has 15 generators (at buses 1-15) LINES – 75 BUS INDIAN SYSTEM
and 98 transmission lines (including 24 transformers). This Outage Line
∂λ Line
∂λ
system has been taken from [28] with loadings reduced to (Tow- ∂Qik (Tow- ∂Qik
ards bus) ards bus)
90% of original values.
The loading margin for the system intact case & Intact
contingency cases (considering line and generator outages) System 39-59 49.1434 18-71 24.590
(No (39) (18)
were obtained using continuation power flow based software outage)
package UWPFLOW [29]. The critical contingencies were 29-30 43-58 60.388 36-19 36.448
obtained based on post contingency loading margins. Based on (43) (36)
post contingency loading margins critical contingencies were 36-37 35-17 21.331 35-41 18.105
indentified to be the outages of lines 29-30, 36-37, 74-73, 23- (35) (35)
29, 29-75, 22-25, 55-44, 26-22, 44-15( generator-15) and 16- 74-73 39-59 33.771 63-55 28.098
50 in the order of relative severity. The proposed sensitivity (39) (63)
factors ∂λ were calculated for all the lines using 23-29 29-38 109.61 44-45 97.686
∂Qik (29) (44)
equation (3) at a loading value corresponding to 90% of 29-75 54-28 44.458 44-45 32.495
(54) (44)
maximum loading value for the system intact case and for
22-25 43-58 25.244 35-17 25.178
each of the critical contingencies. The absolute value of these (43) (35)
sensitivity factors for two most sensitive lines for the intact 55-44 29-38 160.02 44-45 34.04
case and critical contingency cases are shown in Table-I. It is (29) (44)
observed from Table-I that line 29-38(towards bus29) has 26-22 29-38 106.40 44-45 97.686
maximum value of sensitivity factor for outages of lines 23- (29) (44)
29, 55-44, 26-22 and 44-15( generator-15). Line 39-59 44-15 29-38 60.21 45-44 54.517
(towards bus 39) has maximum value of sensitivity factor for (Generator- (29) (45)
15)
the system intact case and for the outage of line 74-73. Line
16-50 54-28 111.808 29-38 50.475
35-17(towards bus 35) has maximum value of sensitivity (54) (29)
factor for the outage of line 36-37. Line 54-28(towards bus 54)
has maximum value of sensitivity factor for the outage of lines
The voltage profiles of most critical bus for intact case and
29-75 and 16-50. Line 43-58(towards bus 43) has maximum
for the critical contingency cases were plotted using
value of sensitivity factor for outage of lines 29-30 and 22-25.
UWPFLOW & MATLAB. Figure-4 shows the voltage profile
Hence, lines 29-38(towards bus29), 39-59 (towards bus39),
of most critical bus for the intact system with and without
35-17(towards bus35), 54-28(towards bus 54), 43-58(towards
UPFC controller placed in the system. The voltage profile of
bus 43) were considered as priority locations for the placement
the most critical bus for the three most severe outage cases
of UPFC.
(viz. outage of lines 29-30,36-37,74-73) are shown in figures
The loading margin for the intact system and for the critical
5, 6 and 7 respectively. It is observed from figures 4, 5, 6 and
contingency cases, with UPFC placed in each of the priority
7 that placement of UPFC at the optimal location results in
locations were calculated using repeated load flows. For
significant enhancement in voltage stability margins.
obtaining maximum loadability points, starting from the base
case operating point, loads were gradually increased in the
steps of 0.01, until load flow diverged. While running repeated
load flows steady state injection model of UPFC [19] was
considered and real power generations, real and reactive
power demands were increased as per equations (7), (8) & (9),
respectively. The loading margins without UPFC and with
UPFC placed in priority locations for the system intact case &
critical contingency cases are shown in Tables II and III. It is
observed from Tables II and III that UPFC placement in line
29-38 towards bus 29 causes maximum enhancement in
Figure 4: Voltage profile of the most critical bus for the intact case for 75 -
voltage stability margin for system intact case and for most of
bus Indian System
 TABLE II
IMPACT OF UPFC ON LOADING MARGIN (75-BUS INDIAN SYSTEM) TABLE III
IMPACT OF UPFC ON LOADING MARGIN (CONTINUED)
(75-BUS INDIAN SYSTEM)
Loading Margin

Loading Margin

With
Without
Outage UPFC in line With UPFC in line With-
UPFC With With
29-38 towa- 43-58 towards Bus-43 With
Cont-roller out UPFC in UPFC in
rds Bus-29 Outage UPFC in line
UPFC line 39-59 line 54-28
35-17 towa-
Cont- towards towards
rds Bus-35
roller Bus-39 Bus-54
Intact
System (No 0.169 0.191 0.188
Outage)
Intact System
0.17 0.19 0.18 0.18
(No Outage)
29-30 0.013 0.029 0.033

29-30 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01

36-37 0.038 0.045 0.042

36-37 0.04 0.043 * 0.043

74-73 0.051 0.066 0.067

74-73 0.051 0.066 0.065 0.055

23-29 0.053 0.079 0.077

23-29 0.053 0.078 0.072 0.053

29-75 0.053 0.071 0.068

29-75 0.053 0.069 0.062 0.060

22-25 0.058 0.075 0.081

22-25 0.058 0.077 0.078 0.058

55-44 0.064 0.082 0.084

55-44 0.064 0.083 0.075 0.065

26-22 0.065 0.090 0.086

44-15 26-22 0.065 0.088 0.077 0.070

(Generator- 0.069 0.084 0.082
15) 44-15
(Gen-erator- 0.069 0.081 0.081 0.075
16-50 0.091 0.105 0.103 15)

16-50 0.091 0.103 0.096 0.085

*Load flow divergence

Figure 5: Voltage profile of the most critical bus under line 29-30 outage
for 75 -bus Indian System Figure 6: Voltage profile of the most critical bus under line 36-37 outage
for 75 -bus Indian System

Figure 7: Voltage profile of the most critical bus under line 74-73 outage
for 75 -bus Indian System
V. CONCLUSION
A sensitivity based approach has been proposed in this
paper for the optimal placement of UPFC in power system to
enhance voltage stability under contingencies. The sensitivity
of loading parameter (λ) with respect to reactive power
flowing through lines has been computed to decide optimal
location for the placement of UPFC. From the case studies
carried out on 75 bus Indian system, a considerable increase in
loading margin have been observed after UPFC placement at
the optimal location. These sensitivity factors can be easily
computed and are quite simple to adopt.
REFERENCES
[1] Jaime De La Ree, Yilu Liu, Lamine Mili, Arun G. Phadke, and Luiz
Dasilva, “Catastrophic failures in power systems: Causes, Analyses, and
Countermeasures”, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 93, No. 5, pp. 956-
964, May 2005.
[2] Clark H.K, “New challenge: voltage stability,” IEEE Power Engineering
Review, pp. 33-37, April 1990.
[3] N G. Hingorani, and L. Gyugyi, “Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems”, IEEE Press, New-
York, 2000.
[4] Yakout Mansour, Wilson Xu, Fernando Alvarado, Chhewang Rinzin,
“SVC placement using critical modes of voltage instability”, IEEE
Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 757-763, May 1994
[5] Claudio A. Canizares and Zeno T. Faur, “Analysis of SVC and TCSC
controllers in voltage collapse”, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp. 158-165, February 1999.
[6] S.N. Singh., “Location of FACTS devices for enhancing power system
security,” Power Engineering, 2001. Large Engineering Systems
Conference on Power engineering, Halifax, NS, Canada ,pp. 162-166,
2001.
[7] Claudio A. Canizares, Masimmo Pozzi, Sandro Corsi, Edvina Uzunovic,
“STATCOM modeling for voltage and angle stability studies”,
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol.25,
No.6, pp.431-441, July 2003.
[8] Nkihilesh Kumar Sharma, Arindam Ghosh, Rajiv Kumar Varma, “A
novel placement strategy for FACTS controllers”, IEEE Trans. On
Power Delivery, Vol.18, No.3, pp.982-987, July 2003.
[9] D. Thukaram and G. Yesuratnam, “Optimal reactive power dispatch in a
large power system with AC–DC and FACTS controllers”, IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. Vol2, No.1, pp. 71–81, 2008.
[10] J. G. Singh, S. N. Singh and S. C. Srivastava, “An Approach for Optimal
Placement of Static VAr Compensators Based on Reactive Power Spot
Price”, IEEE Trans on Power Systems , Vol. 22, No. 4 pp.2021-2029,
Nov2007
[11] N. Yorino, E.E. Araby, H Sasaki and S harada, “A new formulation for
FACTS allocation for security enhancement against voltage
collapse”,IEEE Trans on Power Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-10. Feb
2003.
[12] Malihe M. Farsangi, Hossein Nezamabadi-pour, Yong-Hua Song,
“Placement of SVCs and Selection of Stabilizing Signals in Power
Systems”, IEEE Trans on Power Systems Vol. 22, No. 3, , pp.1061-1071,.
August 2007.
[13] M. K. Verma and S. C. Srivastava, “Optimal placement of TCSC for
static and dynamic voltage security enhancement”, Proc. of the 13th
National Power Systems Conference, I. I. T. Madras, India, pp. 713-718,
December 28-30, 2004.
[14] Roberto Mínguez, Federico Milano, Rafael Zárate-Miñano, and Antonio
J. Conejo, “Optimal Network Placement of SVC Devices”, IEEE Trans
on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 1851-1860,November 2007 .
[15] Hal Feng Wang, H. Li, H. Chen, “Coordinated secondary voltage control
to eliminate voltage violations in power system contingencies”, IEEE
Trans.on Power Systems, Vol.18, No. 2, pp.588-595, May-2003.
[16] Jing Zhang, J. Y. Wen, S. J. Cheng, Jia Ma, “A Novel SVC Allocation
Method for Power System Voltage Stability enhancement by Normal
Forms of Diffeomorphism”, IEEE Trans on Power Systems, Vol. 22,
N0. 4, pp.1819-1825, November 2007.
[17] E. A. Leonidaki, D. P. Georgiadis, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, “Decision
Trees for Determination of Optimal Location and Rate of Series
Compensation to Increase Power System Loading Margin”, IEEE Trans
on Power Systems Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.1303-1310,August 2006
[18] M.K.Verma and S.C.Srivastava “ Enhancement of voltage stability
margin under contingencies using FACTS controllers” Proc. of the
International Conference on Power System Operation in Deregulated
Regime, IT-BHU, Varanasi (India), pp. 139-149, March 6-7, 2006
[19] H.A. Abdelsalam, G.E. M. Aly, M. Abdelkrim and K.M. Shebl,
“Optimal location of the Unified Power Flow Controller in electrical
power system,” Proc. of the Large Engineering Systems Conference on
Power Engineering – LESCOPE-2004, Westin Nova Scotian, pp. 41-46,
July 28-30, 2004.
[20] D. Thukaram, L. Jenkins and K. Visakha, “Improvement of system
security with unified-power flow controller at suitable locations under
network contingencies of interconnected systems”, IEE Proc.-Gener.
Transm. Distrib., Vol. 152, No. 5, pp.682-690, September 2005
[21] Weishao and Vijay Vittal, “LP based OPF for corrective FACTS control to
relieve overloads and voltage violations”,IEEE Trans on Power Systems,
Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1832-1839, November 2006.
[22] M. Saravanan, S. Mary Raja Slochanal, P. Venkatesh, Prince Stephen
Abraham. J “Application of PSO technique for optimal location of
FACTS devices considering system loadability and cost of installation”,
Power Engineering Conference, Singapore, vol- 2, pp. 716- 721, Nov29-
Dec 2,2005
[23] S.T.Jaya Christa, P.Venkatesh, “Application of Particle Swarm
Optimization for Optimal Placement of Unified Power Flow Controllers
in Electrical Systems with Line Outages”, International Conference on
Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications,,Sivakasi
(India)Vol.1, pp.119-124, Dec.2007
[24] J. Hao, L.B. Shi and Ch. Chen, “Optimising location of unified power
flow controllers by means of improved evolutionary programming”, IEE
Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 151, No. 6, pp.705-712, November
2004.
[25] M. Noroozian, L. Anguist, M. Ghandhari and G. Andersson, “Use of
UPFC for optimal power flow control”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1629-1634, October 1997.
[26] L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder, S. L. Williams, T. R. Rietman, D. R.
Togerson and A. Edris, “The Unified Power Flow Controller: A new
approach to power transmission control”, IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1085-1097, April 1995.
[27 Venkataramana Ajjarapu and Colin Christy, “Continuation Power Flow:
A Tool for Steady State Voltage Stability analysis” IEEE Trans on
Power System, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.416-423, February 1992.
[28] S.N.Singh and S.C. Srivastava, “Corrective action planning to achieve
optimal power flow solution” IEE Proceeedings, Part C, Vol. 142, pp.
576-582, November 1995.
[29] Software Package UWPFLOW available at
http://www.power.uwaterloo.ca/~claudio/software/pflow.html.