Abstract--The conventional load flow methods for

transmission systems could not be utilized for distribution

systems, due to their especial characteristics. If methods like
Newton-Raphson and Fast-Decoupled are used for distribution
systems, the probability of their convergence would be low.
Therefore, due to inherent characteristics of distribution systems,
it is essential to develop the distribution version of the load flow
methods. The distribution networks usually have single source
node and they have a radial configuration, but sometimes there
are more than one source node that supplying the distribution
network. This paper presents a load flow method for distribution
networks, which can handle one or more sources on the
distribution networks.

Index Terms--Distribution networks, load flow method,
multiple source nodes.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE load flow problem is an important tool for design and
operation of distribution systems. At the design stage, it is
applied to ensure that the voltage and current standards are
fulfilled under various conditions allover the network. At the
operation stage, load flow is used to ensure that voltages and
currents are within the predefined ranges for expected loads.
In addition to direct use, the load flow problem might also be
utilized as a sub-problem in other network studies. For
instance, in loss reduction problem the load flow is run for
each network configuration. Recent developments in
distribution systems automation and deregulation necessitate
for accurate and fast load flow studies.
Conventional load flow methods, such as Newton-Raphson
and Fast-Decoupled, are well established and efficient for
transmission networks. However, care must be taken in using
these methods for distribution networks where the line R/X
ratio is high and the network is normally operated in radial
configuration. These characteristics of distribution networks
place them in the group of ill-conditioned networks for the
conventional methods.
Usually the distribution networks are supplied via a single
source node and they have a radial configuration, but
sometimes there are more than one source node that supplying
the distribution network. This could be due to presence of a
dispersed generation unit or when the network is supplied

The authors are with the Center of Excellence for Power Systems
Automation and Operation, Department of Electrical Engineering, Iran
University of Science and Technology (IUST), Narmak 16846, Tehran, Iran,
(e-mails: shateri@iust.ac.ir and sjamali@iust.ac.ir).
from two or more different upstream (with higher voltage
level) networks, because of security aspects. Therefore, it is
essential to develop a distribution load flow method which is
capable of handling the networks with more than one source
node.
This paper presents a distribution load flow method for
distribution networks with one or more than one source node.
This method applies the backward and forward sweeping
technique for solving the distribution load flow problem in the
mentioned conditions.
II. AUDIT TRAIL
Unlike transmission systems, very little attention has been
paid to the load flow problem in distribution systems.
Although there have been some load flow solutions for
distribution systems, it is difficult to choose a suitable method
for a particular application. Many researches used
conventional load flow methods, such as Newton-Raphson,
modified to solve the networks with a high R/X ratio. A brief
description of some salient works will follow.
Kersting and Medive [1] and Kersting [2] proposed a load
flow method for solving radial distribution networks by using
the ladder-network theory, Stevens, et al. [3] showed that the
ladder method is the fastest method, but this method does not
converge for five out of twelve networks. Shirmohammadi, et
al. [4]-[5] presented a method based on direct use of
Kirchhoff's voltage and current laws. They also expanded their
method to solve the weakly meshed networks. At first, the
proposed method was for balanced three-phase systems, some
years later they modified it for unbalanced three-phase
networks. Baran and Wu [6] proposed a load flow solution by
iterative solving of three main equations which describe the
active and reactive power and the voltage magnitude. They
calculated the Jacobian matrix by using the chain rule. In their
method, computation of the mismatches and Jacobian matrix
was only consisted of some simple algebraic expressions, not
the trigonometric functions. They also presented an algorithm
for fast decoupled load flow. Chiang [7] presented three
different algorithms based on the proposed method by Baran
and Wu [6]. These algorithms consisted of decoupled, fast
decoupled and very fast decoupled load flow. Decoupled and
fast decoupled methods were similar to the methods proposed
by Baran and Wu, but their very fast decoupled load flow
algorithm was very effective, as it did not need the calculation
of Jacobian matrix or factoring. Renato [8] developed a
method that calculated equivalent electric network at each
Load Flow Method for Distribution Networks
with Multiple Source Nodes
H. Shateri, Member, IEEE & IET, and S. Jamali, Fellow, IET
T
2008 IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conference
978-1-4244-2895-3/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

node by summing all the loads and losses of the network fed
from that node. Then, by starting from the source node, he
computed the voltage of each node. Jasmon and Lee [9]-[10]
applied three basic equations describing active and reactive
power and the voltage magnitude introduced in [6]. They also
proposed a new method for numbering the nodes and the
branches, which was useful in exact determination of active
and reactive power of the loads fed from each node and the
voltage at the end of each branch. Ghosh and Das [12]
proposed a method in which it was only necessary to evaluate
some simple algebraic variables. This method had the
capability of considering combined loads, if their combination
was known.
All of the above methods were based on iterative
techniques, where iterations continued until the convergence
criterion was satisfied. Goswami and Basu [13] presented a
method for direct solution of the load flow problem in radial
distribution networks. In this method, only three branches are
connected to each node. To obtain such a network, it is
necessary to perform some pre-processing on the network. In
contrast to the methods described in the previous paragraph,
where the load is modeled as a constant PQ, Goswami and
Basu assumed that the loads had a constant impedance
characteristic and by this assumption they directly solved the
load flow problem.
All of the above methods considered loads as constant PQ
or constant impedance. In the case of constant PQ the load
flow is solved iteratively, while for constant impedance loads,
there is a direct solution.


























Fig. 1 Numbering a test network
III. NUMBERING METHOD
Network topology is an important aspect in distribution
systems studies. Many of aforementioned references presented
methods for numbering the network components for solving
the load flow problem. In general, a numbering strategy is
required in distribution networks studies.
Here, the numbering method reported in [18] is utilized for
numbering the network elements, which is somehow similar to
the method presented by Goswami and Basu [13] for
numbering the network.
If there is only one source node, it would be the main
source node. Otherwise, in the case of multiple source nodes,
the main source node is considered as the source node, e.g. in
a network with dispersed units the source node is the main
one, and if there is no difference between the sources, one of
them is selected as the main one, randomly.
After selection of the source node, the numbering process
starts from this node. The far end node of the connected
branch to this node is numbered one. After first branch, the
connected branch to its far end is numbered. This process
continues and if there is a lateral on the feeder, the branches of
the lateral with fewer components are first numbered. In the
case of branches, each branch has two nodes; the number of
each branch is the number of its far end node, the node with
the higher number. Fig. 1 shows the application of the
numbering method on a test network.
IV. LOAD FLOW SOLUTION
The admittance matrix is not used in distribution load flow
methods, in contrast to the transmission load flow methods. In
this case, because of the low coupling of line sections with
each other, KVL and KCL equations are directly formed for
the line sections.
Among the presented methods, the backward and forward
sweeping is an efficient method. In the backward sweep,
starting from the far end of the network, load current at the
load points; therefore, the following current through the line
section are calculated regarding to the assumed or calculated
voltages at the previous iteration. After calculating the
following current through each line section, in the forward
sweep, starting from the source node, voltages of all nodes are
updated. After the forward sweep, the injected compensation
currents are calculated. Then the convergence criterion should
be checked. There are various types of convergence criteria
dealing with node voltages, load or line section currents, and
input power to the network.
Regarding the above mentioned tips, the developed
distribution load flow method for networks with multiple
source nodes is as follows.
A. Backward Sweep
The procedure of the load flow solution starts with
backward sweep. In the first iteration, the voltage of all nodes
assumed to be equal to the voltage of the (main) source node.
If there are multiple source nodes, the injected compensation
currents corresponding to these sources are zero in the first
iteration. Otherwise, the node voltages and injected
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
1
14
13
12
11
17
18
16
1
9
10
12
14
13 11
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
16
15
17
18
Supply 0

compensation currents are as calculated at the previous
iteration. Knowing the node voltages and injected
compensation currents, the load currents could be evaluated.
Therefore, the load current of the node i is:

+ = ] V / ) Q j P [( I
i i i ld
i
(1)
where:
I
ldi
: Load current at Node i
P
i
: Active demand at Node i
Q
i
: Reactive demand at Node i
V
i
: Voltage at Node i
In the above equation, active and reactive demands and
voltage could be in kW, kVAR, and kV (or W, VAR, and V),
respectively. Therefore, currents are obtained in Amperes.
After calculating of the load currents, the flowing current
through line sections can be evaluated, starting from the far
end of the network.

= + =
D j
C ld L
1 , , N i ) I I ( I
j j i

(2)
where:
I
Lj
: Flowing current through Line Section i
I
ldj
: Load current at Node j
I
Cj
: Injected compensation current at Node j
D : Set of the downstream nodes (due to Node i)
Therefore, the backward sweep is finished and the flowing
current through each line section is evaluated.
B. Forward Sweep
In forward sweep, starting from the (main) source node,
that its voltage is known, and knowing impedance and flowing
current for each line section, all nodes voltage are updated
neglecting the other sources, if there are any.
N , , 1 i I Z V V
i i
L i U i
= =
(3)
where:
V
i
: Voltage at Node i
V
Ui
: Voltage at the upstream node of Node i
Z
i
: Impedance of Line Section i
I
Li
: Flowing current through Line Section i
Therefore, the forward sweep is finished, and the voltage of
each node is updated.
C. Injected Compensation Currents
After forward sweep, the injected compensation currents
are updated. The compensation injected currents are due to
presence of the sources with except of the main source node.
If there is one source node, the injected compensation currents
are zero for nodes. Otherwise, for multiple sources, the
injected compensation current for the nodes not connected to a
source is zero; and in the case of source nodes it is equal to:
i i i i
S S i old C new C
Z ) 2 / S /( ) V V ( I I + =
(4)
where:
I
Ci new
: Injected compensation current at Node i in
previous iteration
I
Ci old
: Injected compensation current at Node i in present
iteration
V
i
: Calculated voltage at Node i
V
Si
: Source voltage at Node i
Z
Si
: Impedance between the main source and Node i
S : Number of source nodes, including the main one
Therefore, the injected compensation currents are updated.
D. Convergence Criterion
As mentioned, the convergence criterion should be checked
after backward and forward sweeping and injected
compensation currents updating. Here, the voltage difference
of two consecutive iterations is considered as the convergence
criterion, in addition to the voltage difference between the
source nodes actual and calculated voltages:
N , , 1 i V V V max
C i i
new old
= < (5)
SN i V V V max
C S i
i new
< (6)
where:
V
j old
: Voltage at Node i in previous iteration
V
i new
: Voltage at Node i in present iteration
V
C
: Maximum voltage mismatch, assumed to be 10
-5

pu
V
Si
: Source voltage at Node i
SN : Set of the source nodes except the main one
If the convergence criterion is satisfied, the load flow
solution is complete; otherwise, the calculations should be
repeated; i.e. a new iteration should be performed.
E. Network Losses
Once the load flow solution converged, the losses of the
network could be calculated due to the line section flowing
currents and resistances.
N , , 1 i I R L
2
L i i
i
= = (7)
where:
L
i
: Loss at Line Section i
R
i
: Impedance of Line Section i
I
Li
: Flowing current through Line Section i
Once the loss of each line section has been evaluated, the
total losses of the network could be calculated. The per-unit
value of total losses is calculated by dividing the total losses to
the network input active power.
V. CASE STUDY
The proposed load flow method has been implemented for
the test network depicted in Fig. 1. The network data, the line
sections and the loads, is given in TABLE I.
If the network is supplied through one source node, Node 0,
the load flow results are presented in TABLE II.
In TABLE II the columns are as following:
V : Voltage in volts
VD : Voltage drop in present
IN : Node current in amperes
IL : Line section current in amperes
IC : Injected compensation current in amperes

TABLE I
TEST NETWORK DATA
Line Section
Number
Length
(m)
Cross-Section
(mm
2
)
P (kW) Q (kVAr)
1 15 70 Ca 0 0.0
2 30 50 Ar 5 2.4
3 24 16 Ar 0 0.0
4 18 16 Ca 8 3.6
5 24 16 Ar 10 4.5
6 32 16 Ca 6 2.8
7 30 16 Ar 6 2.6
8 28 25 Ar 10 4.8
9 24 25 Ar 0 0.0
10 52 16 Ca 10 5.1
11 30 16 Ar 8 3.8
12 20 16 Ca 10 4.9
13 30 16 Ar 12 5.9
14 26 16 Ar 0 0.0
15 45 16 Ca 8 3.9
16 30 16 Ar 6 2.7
17 12 16 Ca 8 3.7
18 29 16 Ar 12 6.2

TABLE II
LOAD FLOW RESULTS, SINGLE SOURCE NODE (NODE 0)
Node
No
V
(V)
VD
(%)
IN (A) IL (A) IC (A)
Loss
(W)
Re Im Re Im Re Im
1 378.1 0.50 0 0 189.9 -90.6 0 0 0682
2 373.1 1.83 07.7 -3.7 189.9 -90.6 0 0 1479
3 370.6 2.49 0 0 047.0 -21.1 0 0 0218
4 370 2.64 12.5 -5.6 012.5 -05.6 0 0 0015
5 368.7 2.97 15.7 -7.1 034.5 -15.5 0 0 0117
6 367.9 3.18 09.4 -4.4 009.4 -04.4 0 0 0015
7 368.1 3.14 09.4 -4.1 009.4 -04.1 0 0 0011
8 367.2 3.38 15.7 -7.6 135.2 -65.7 0 0 1417
9 362.7 4.56 0 0 119.5 -58.2 0 0 0949
10 360.5 5.14 16.0 -8.1 016.0 -08.1 0 0 0074
11 359.4 5.42 12.9 -6.1 048.3 -23.4 0 0 0296
12 358.6 5.64 16.1 -7.9 016.1 -07.9 0 0 0028
13 358.1 5.77 19.4 -9.5 019.4 -09.5 0 0 0048
14 359.4 5.41 0 0 055.2 -26.6 0 0 0333
15 357.9 5.81 12.9 -6.3 012.9 -06.3 0 0 0041
16 356.6 6.16 09.7 -4.4 042.2 -20.3 0 0 0225
17 356.2 6.27 13.0 -6.0 013.0 -06.0 0 0 0011
18 355.3 6.50 19.5 -10.0 019.5 -10.0 0 0 0048
Total Losses 4.80 (%) 6005 (W)

In TABLE II, the source node voltage is 380 volts. The
total loss of the distribution network is equal to 6005 W,
which is 4.80% of the input active power to the network. Node
18 has the maximum voltage drop of 6.50%.
TABLE III presents the load flow results for the case of
double source nodes, Nodes 0 and 18. Both source node
voltages are 380 volts.
In TABLE III, the total loss of the distribution network is
equal to 2521 W, which is 2.53% of the input active power to
the network. Node 13 has the maximum voltage drop of
3.23%. It can be seen that providing the second source node
leads to lower losses as well as better voltage profile allover
the network.
In TABLE III, the total loss of the distribution network is
equal to 2521 W, which is 2.53% of the input active power to
the network. Node 13 has the maximum voltage drop of
3.23%. It can be seen that providing the second source node
leads to lower losses as well as better voltage profile allover
the network.
TABLE III
LOAD FLOW RESULTS, DOUBLE SOURCE NODES
Node
No
V
(V)
VD
(%)
IN (A) IL (A) IC (A)
Loss
(W)
Re Im Re Im Re Im
1 378.9 0.29 0 0 106.2 -56.0 0 0 222
2 376.0 1.05 07.7 -3.7 106.2 -56.0 0 0 481
3 373.5 1.70 0 0 046.6 -20.9 0 0 214
4 373.0 1.86 12.4 -5.6 012.4 -05.6 0 0 015
5 371.7 2.19 15.5 -7 034.2 -15.4 0 0 115
6 370.9 2.39 09.3 -4.3 009.3 -04.3 0 0 015
7 371.1 2.35 09.3 -4 009.3 -04.0 0 0 011
8 373.7 1.67 15.5 -7.4 051.9 -31.4 0 0 230
9 372.2 2.05 0 0 036.5 -24.0 0 0 102
10 370.1 2.63 15.6 -7.9 015.6 -07.9 0 0 070
11 369.0 2.89 12.5 -5.9 047.1 -22.8 0 0 280
12 368.2 3.12 15.7 -7.6 015.7 -07.6 0 0 027
13 367.8 3.23 18.9 -9.2 018.9 -09.2 0 0 045
14 373.7 1.67 0 0 -026.3 06.7 0 0 065
15 372.2 2.07 12.4 -6.0 012.4 -06.0 0 0 038
16 376.2 1.01 09.2 -4.1 -038.7 12.7 0 0 170
17 375.8 1.11 12.3 -5.7 012.3 -05.7 0 0 010
18 380 0 18.2 -9.4 -060.2 22.5 -78.4 32.0 410
Total Losses 2.53 (%) 2521 (W)

In this case, a part of the distribution network load is
supplied through the second source node, Node 18.
Consequently, the losses are decreased and the voltage profile
is improved.
TABLE IV presents the load flow results for the case of
triple source nodes, Nodes 0, 7, and 18. All source node
voltages are 380 volts.

TABLE IV
LOAD FLOW RESULTS, TRIPLE SOURCE NODES
Node
No
V
(V)
VD
(%)
IN (A) IL (A) IC (A)
Loss
(W)
Re Im Re Im Re Im
1 379.3 0.19 0 0 67.3 -39.7 0 0 094
2 377.4 0.68 07.6 -3.7 67.3 -39.7 0 0 204
3 377.2 0.72 0 0 02.3 -03.9 0 0 002
4 376.7 0.88 12.3 -5.5 12.3 -05.5 0 0 014
5 377.7 0.60 15.3 -6.9 -09.9 01.6 0 0 008
6 377.0 0.81 09.2 -4.3 09.2 -04.3 0 0 015
7 380 0 09.1 -4 -34.4 12.8 -43.5 16.7 138
8 374.8 1.36 15.4 -7.4 57.3 -32.2 0 0 271
9 373.2 1.79 0 0 41.9 -24.8 0 0 127
10 371.1 2.37 15.6 -7.9 15.6 -07.9 0 0 070
11 370.0 2.63 12.5 -5.9 47.0 -22.7 0 0 279
12 369.2 2.86 15.7 -7.6 15.7 -07.6 0 0 027
13 368.8 2.97 18.8 -9.2 18.8 -09.2 0 0 045
14 374.4 1.49 0 0 -20.7 05.8 0 0 041
15 372.9 1.89 12.4 -6 12.4 -06.0 0 0 038
16 376.5 0.92 9.2 -4.1 -33.1 11.8 0 0 126
17 376.1 1.03 12.3 -5.7 12.3 -05.7 0 0 010
18 380 0 18.2 -9.4 -54.6 21.6 -72.8 31.0 341
Total Losses 2.09 (%) 1849 (W)

In TABLE IV, the total loss of the distribution network is
equal to 2849 W, which is 2.09% of the input active power to
the network. Node 13 has the maximum voltage drop of
2.97%. It can be seen that providing the third source node
leads to lower losses as well as better voltage profile allover
the network, compared with the two previous cases.
TABLE V presents the load flow results for the case of
double source nodes, Nodes 0 and 18. But in this case, the
voltage of Node 0 is 380 volts, while the voltage of Node 18 is
340 volts.

TABLE V
LOAD FLOW RESULTS, DOUBLE SOURCE NODES
Node
No
V
(V)
VD
(%)
IN (A) IL (A) IC (A)
Loss
(W)
Re Im Re Im Re Im
1 377.6 0.64 0 0 243.7 107.0 0 0 1090
2 371.3 2.32 07.8 -03.8 243.7 107.0 0 0 2365
3 368.7 2.97 0 0 047.2 021.3 0 0 0220
4 368.2 3.12 12.5 -05.7 012.5 005.7 0 0 0015
5 366.9 3.46 15.7 -07.1 034.6 015.6 0 0 0118
6 366.1 3.66 09.5 -04.4 009.5 004.4 0 0 0015
7 366.3 3.62 09.5 -04.1 009.5 004.1 0 0 0011
8 363.2 4.44 15.9 -07.7 188.8 081.9 0 0 2653
9 356.8 6.11 0 0 172.9 074.2 0 0 1902
10 354.6 6.68 16.3 -08.3 016.3 008.3 0 0 0077
11 353.5 6.98 13.1 -06.2 049.1 024.0 0 0 0306
12 352.6 7.20 16.4 -08.0 016.4 008.0 0 0 0029
13 352.2 7.33 19.7 -09.7 019.7 009.7 0 0 0049
14 350.7 7.72 0 0 107.5 041.9 0 0 1184
15 349.1 8.13 13.2 -06.5 013.2 006.5 0 0 0043
16 344.5 9.35 10.1 -04.5 094.3 020.3 0 0 1041
17 344.0 9.46 13.4 -06.2 013.4 06.2 0 0 0012
18 340 10.53 20.4 -10.5 070.8 024.7 50.5 -14.2 0558
Total Losses 8.16 (%) 11688 (W)

In TABLE V, the total loss of the distribution network is
equal to 11688 W, which is 8.16% of the input active power to
the network. Node 18 has the maximum voltage drop of
10.53%. It can be seen that providing the second source node
leads to higher losses as well as worse voltage profile allover
the network, compared with TABLE II.
In this case, the voltage at the second source node is lower
than the voltage of Node 18 before the connection of the new
source node. This case would be observed in emergency
conditions, where a faulted adjacent network, or a part of it, is
supplied through this healthy network to reduced the non
distributed energy.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a distribution load flow method
for the distribution networks with one or multiple source
nodes. This method applies the backward and forward
sweeping technique for solving distribution load flow. In the
case of multiple source nodes, the injected compensation
currents are utilized to consider the impacts of the other
sources on the network load flow.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] W. H. Kersting and D. L. Mendive, "An application of ladder network
theory to the solution of three phase load flow problem", in proc. 1976
IEEE/PES winter meeting, New York, January 1976.
[2] W. H. Kersting, "A method to design and operation of a distribution
system", IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-103, pp.
19451952, 1984.
[3] R. A. Stevens, D. T. Rizy, and S. L. Purucker, "Performance of
conventional power flow routines for real-time distribution automation
application", in Proc. 18
th
Southeastern Symposium on System Theory,
1986, pp.196200.
[4] D. Shirmohammadi, H. W. Hong, A. Semlyen, and G. X. Luo, "A
compensation-based power flow method for weakly meshed distribution
and transmission networks", IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 3, no. 2,
May 1988, pp. 753762.
[5] C. S. Cheng and D. Shirmohammadi, "A three-phase power flow method
for real-time distribution system analysis", IEEE Trans. Power Systems,
vol. 10, no. 2, May 1995, pp. 671679.
[6] M. Baran and F. F. Wu, "Optimal sizing of capacitors placed on a radial
distribution system", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 1, Jan.
1989, pp. 735743.
[7] H. D. Chiang, "A decoupled load flow method for distribution power
network algorithms, analysis and convergence study", in Proc. 1991
Electric Power Energy Systems, 13 (3), pp. 913.
[8] R. G. Cespedes, "New method for the analysis of distribution networks",
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 1990, pp. 391396.
[9] G. B. Hasmon and L. H. C. C. Lee, "Distribution network reduction for
voltage stability analysis and load flow calculations", in Proc. 1991
Electric Power Energy Systems, 13 (1), pp. 913.
[10] G. B. Hasmon and L. H. C. C. Lee, "Stability of load flow techniques for
distribution system voltage stability analysis", IEE Proc. C, Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, vol. 138, no. 6, pp. 479484, Nov.
1991.
[11] D. Das, H. S. Nagi, and D. P. Kothari, "Novel method for solving radial
distribution networks", IEE Proc. C, Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 291298, July 1994.
[12] S. Ghosh and D. Das, "Method for load-flow solution of radial
distribution networks", IEE Proc. C, Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol. 146, no. 6, pp. 641648, Nov. 1999.
[13] S. K. Goswami and S. K. Basu, "Direct solution of distribution systems",
IEE Proc. C, Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 138, no.
1, pp. 7888, Jan. 1991.
[14] T. H. Chen, M. S. Chen, K. J. Hwang, P. Kotas, and E. A. Chebli,
"Distribution system power flow analysis-a rigid approach", IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11461152, July 1991.
[15] M. S. Srinivas, "Distribution load flows: A brief review", in proc. 2000
IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 942945.
[16] J. Nanda, M. S. Srinivas, M. Sharma, S.S. Dey, and L.L. Lai, "New
findings on radial distribution system load flow algorithms", in proc.
2000 IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 11571161.
[17] J. Nanda, M. Kothari, and M. S. Srinivas, "On some aspects of
distribution load flow", in proc. 1998 IEEE Region 10 International
Conference on Global Connectivity in Energy, Computer,
Communication and Control, TENCON'98, vol. 2, pp. 510513.
[18] S. Jamali and H. Shateri, "Optimal siting of recloser and sectionalizers to
reduce non-distributed energy", in Proc. IEEE/PES T&D Conference &
Exhibition 2005: Asia Pacific, IEEE/PES T&D 2005AP, Dalian, China,
14-18 August 2005.
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Hossein Shateri (M07) was born in 1979 in Karaj,
Iran. He received his BSc and MSc from Iran
University of Science and Technology in Tehran in
2001 and 2003, respectively all in electrical
Engineering. He is currently working towards a PhD
degree in the Department of Electrical Engineering
at Iran University of Science and Technology
(IUST) in Tehran, Iran since Sep. 2004. He has
published over 100 papers in international
conferences and journals. H. Shateri is a Member of the Institution of
Engineering Technology (IET) and a Graduate Student Member of the
Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). His field of interest
includes Power System Protection, and Distribution Systems Protection and
Automation.

Sadegh Jamali, was born in 1956 in Tehran, Iran.
He received his BSc from Sharif university of
Technology in Tehran in 1979, MSc from UMIST,
Manchester, UK in 1986 and PhD from City
University, London, UK in 1990, all in Electrical
Engineering. Dr. Jamali is currently an Associate
Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Iran University of Science and
Technology in Tehran. Dr. Jamali is a Fellow of the
Institution of Engineering Technology (IET) and the IET Council
Representative in Iran. His field of interest includes Power System Protection
and Distribution Systems.