See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271512461

Determination of Optimal Location of TCSC and STATCOM for congestion

management in deregulated power system

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s13198-014-0332-4

CITATIONS READS

11 1,219

3 authors:

Anwar Shahzad Siddiqui Mohd Tauseef Khan

Jamia Millia Islamia Rajkiya Engineering College Banda
94 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fahad Iqbal
Jamia Millia Islamia
8 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Application of FACTS devices in Voltage Stability View project

Loadablity enhancement of power system using FACTS devices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Tauseef Khan on 08 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
DOI 10.1007/s13198-014-0332-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Determination of optimal location of TCSC and STATCOM
for congestion management in deregulated power system
Anwar Shahzad Siddiqui • Mohd Tauseef Khan
Fahad Iqbal
Received: 16 May 2014 / Revised: 15 December 2014
 The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2015
Abstract In deregulated power system, congestion man-
agement is a major problem due to operational constraints.
Flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS) devices can be
a choice to control the power flow in congested lines. This
paper explores the use of two popular FACTS devices,
TCSC and STATCOM for power flow control in electrical
network and their capability to decongest the network. It
suggests the optimal location of TCSC and STATCOM
individually to relieve congestion with minimum power
losses, voltage regulation and cost of the device. The
proposed method has been verified on IEEE-14 bus system
for its effectiveness. Simulation work is carried out in
MATLAB software.
Keywords Deregulation  FACTS  Congestion
management  Sensitivity indices  TCSC  STATCOM
1 Introduction
As competition is introduced everywhere, it also affects the
electricity market. Traditional monopolistic electricity
market has been restructured and replaced by three separate
entities i.e., generation companies (GENCOS), transmis-
sion companies (TRANSCOS) and distribution companies
A. S. Siddiqui  M. T. Khan  F. Iqbal (&)
Department of Electrical Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi, India
e-mail: krfahadiqbal@gmail.com
A. S. Siddiqui
e-mail: anshsi@yahoo.co.in
M. T. Khan
e-mail: tauseefkhan_alig@yahoo.co.in
•
(DISCOS). Competition has been introduced to GENCOS
and DISCOS in order to reach higher efficiency in elec-
tricity production and utilization, where as transmission
infrastructure is controlled and administered by the trans-
mission operators which may be a private entity or gov-
ernment organization. Transmission infrastructure is
generally in hands of one entity due to benefits of economy
of scale, economy of scope and the requirement of proper
control.
The electrical load is increasing at a faster rate as
compared to the increment in transmission capability. This,
along with large numbers of bilateral and multilateral
contracts causes intense transmission utilization in certain
areas which was not considered during installation. If the
contracted transactions are not controlled, some lines
present in certain sections may become overloaded; this
phenomenon is termed as congestion (Gad et al. 2012). It
compels for the improvement in transmission capability
and at the same time ensuring system security and reli-
ability i.e., congestion management, which can be defined
as any action taken to avoid or relieve congestion.
Green politics, right-of-way and cost problems are the
fundamental limitations of a transmission network in both
regulated and deregulated power systems. Those contracts
that result in intense flows have a tendency to incur more
losses, and to threaten stability, security and reliability, are
economically unfavorable. Hence, proper utilization of
available transmission capability is required, which can be
achieved by installing flexible AC transmission systems
(FACTS) devices (Taher and Besharat 2008). FACTS
employ high speed thyristor for switching in and out
transmission line component such as capacitors, reactors or
phase shifting transformers for some desirable performance
of the system.
123

FACTS devices can control the power flow in trans-
mission network without generation rescheduling or net-
work reconfiguration, thus improving the performance.
Line flows can be modified in such a manner that there are
reduction in static limit violation and losses, enhancement
of stability margins and fulfillment of contractual obliga-
tion (Hingorani and Gyugyi 2012). Some issues associated
with FACTS devices are optimal location, appropriate size,
setting, cost and modeling (Rajalakshmi et al. 2011).
Congestion management in a restructured market envi-
ronment using a combination of demand response (DR) and
FACTS devices is proposed by Yousefi et al. (2012). They
developed a re-dispatch formulation using mixed integer
optimization technique in which DRs and FACTS device
controllers are optimally coordinated with conventional
generators.
Brosda and Handschin (2001) examined different con-
gestion management techniques and integration of FACTS
controllers in these schemes to reduce the cost of conges-
tion. Huang and Yan (2002) inspected the effect of FACTS
devices in congestion management while transactions
curtailment reduction and increment of total transfer
capability.
The congestion management method considered by
Mwanza et al. 2007 is based on a constrained re-dispatch of
generation schedule. Congestion management cost can be
evaluated from the re-dispatch. They considered the
installation and operation of the FACTS devices in trans-
mission network to alleviate congestion and minimize the
amount of active power required for redispatch. A cost-
benefit analysis is proposed to evaluate the benefit of using
FACTS for congestion management.
Gad et al. (2012) suggested sensitivity factor method for
determining the optimal location of series FACTS devices.
They performed a comparative analysis of real power
performance index and reduction of total reactive power
losses in the system. They concluded that PI method is
more economical than reduction of total system reactive
power loss method for installation of TCSC.
Zhang et al. (2007) presented a general two-step opti-
mization methodology which is capable of determining the
optimal rating of a FACTS controller while relieving
transmission system congestion via effective control of the
flow of active and reactive power. A general sensitivity
based three-step optimization methodology is further
developed to include sensitivity analysis for determining
both the optimal location and rating of a FACTS controller
for congestion management in bilateral electricity market.
Optimal placement of FACTS device is a function of the
ratio of real power loss of network without and with FACTS
device, tolerable voltage limit and cost of FACTS device.
This paper suggested weighted mean method with these
functions on most sensitive lines to determine the optimal
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
location of FACTS device. Further, two FACTS devices i.e.,
TCSC and STATCOM are compared for relieving same
congestion in two different cases. It was inferred that both the
devices has their distinct advantages. According to applica-
tion required, any of these FACTS devices can be selected.
In this paper an attempt is made to explore the use of
TCSC and STATCOM and its locational aspect for con-
gestion management in deregulated power system.
2 Thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC)
Thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC) is a series
FACTS device which enhances the capacity of transmis-
sion line by reducing its series impedance. TCSC does not
require interfacing equipment like high voltage transformer
which makes it more simple and economical than other
FACTS devices.
Figures 1 and 2 shows the basic diagram of TCSC and
its impedance variation curve respectively. It is the curve
between effective reactance and firing angle a of TCSC.
The firing angle a of a bi-directional thyristor valve ranges
from 90 to 180 with respect to capacitor voltage.
• If XL \ XC in designing the TCSC, the benefits of both
inductive and capacitive region can be obtained.
• If XL [ XC, only the capacitive region is possible in
impedance characteristic curve due to the property of
shunt network; as effective reactance is the lesser
reactance present in the branch.
• If XL = XC, a resonance condition develops in the
circuit that results in infinite impedance which is an
unacceptable condition as transmission line would be
considered as an open circuit.
The impedance of TCSC circuit as shown in Fig. 1 can
be given by;
XC X l ð aÞ
XTCSC ðaÞ ¼ ð1Þ
Xl ð aÞ  XC
where,
p
Xl ð a Þ ¼ X L
p  2a  sin a
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of TCSC
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Fig. 2 Impedance characteristic of TCSC

Fig. 3 a Transmission line model. b Transmission line with TCSC.

a: firing angle c Power injection model with TCSC
XL: reactance of the inductor
Pnm ¼ Vn2 Gmn  Vm Vn ½Gmn cos dmn  Bmn sin dmn 
Xl (a): effective reactance of the inductor at firing
angle a Qnm ¼ Vn2 ðBmn þ Bsh Þ þ Vm Vn ½Gmn sin dmn þ Bmn cos dmn 
ð3Þ
2.1 Static modeling The real and reactive power flow from bus-m to bus-n,
and from bus-n to bus-m as shown in Fig. 3b can be written
Congestion management generally needs static application as:
of FACTS devices which can be modeled as a power
P0mn ¼ Vm2 G0mn  Vm Vn ½G0mn cos dmn þ B0mn sin dmn 
injection model (PIM). According to PIM, FACTS devices  
can be represented by PQ elements which injects definite Q0mn ¼ Vm2 B0mn þ Bsh  Vm Vn ½G0mn sin dmn  B0mn cos dmn 
amount of active and reactive power to the specific node P0nm ¼ Vn2 G0mn  Vm Vn ½G0mn cos dmn  B0mn sin dmn 
(Khan and Siddiqui 2014).  
Q0nm ¼ Vn2 B0mn þ Bsh þ Vm Vn ½G0mn sin dmn þ B0mn cos dmn 
Figure 3a represents a lumped p transmission line model
connected between bus-m and bus-n. Ymn represents the ð4Þ
lumped admittance and Bsh represents the lumped shunt where,
susceptance of the transmission line. Figure 3b represents rmn
G0mn ¼
lumped p transmission model with a TCSC connected 2
rmnþ ðxmn  xc Þ2
between bus-m and bus-n. Here, TCSC can be represented ðxmn  xc Þ
by a reactance ‘-jxc’ whose value can be adjusted B0mn ¼ 2
2 þ ðx
rmn mn  xc Þ
according to specified control scheme. Figure 3c represents
the equivalent transmission line model without series Real power injected at bus-m and bus-n after TCSC
capacitance, with power being injected at sending and placement can be given by
receiving ends.
P0m ¼ Vm2 DGmn  Vm Vn ½DGmn cos dmn þ DBmn sin dmn 
Let voltage at bus-m and bus-n are Vm\dm and Vn\dn
respectively. The real and reactive power flow from bus-m P0n ¼ Vn2 DGmn  Vm Vn ½DGmn cos dmn  DBmn sin dmn 
to bus-n as shown in Fig. 3a can be written as: ð5Þ
Pmn ¼ Vm2 Gmn  Vm Vn ½Gmn cos dmn þ Bmn sin dmn  Similarly, Reactive power injected at bus-m and bus-n
Qmn ¼ Vm2 ðBmn þ Bsh Þ  Vm Vn ½Gmn sin dmn  Bmn cos dmn  can be given by:
ð2Þ Q0m ¼ Vm2 DBmn  Vm Vn ½DGmn sin dmn  DBmn cos dmn 

Similarly, the real and reactive power flow from bus-n to Q0n ¼ Vn2 DBmn  Vm Vn ½DGmn sin dmn þ DBmn cos dmn 
bus-m is ð6Þ

123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

where, CTCSC: Cost of TCSC in $/KVAR

QTCSC: Reactive power capacity of TCSC in KVAR
xc rmn ðxc  2xmn Þ
DGmn ¼ 2 w1, w2 and w3 are the weights provided to normalize the
2
ðrmn þ x2mn Þðrmn
2 þ ðx
mn  xc Þ Þ
2 objective function
xc ðrmn  x2mn þ xc xmn Þ
DBmn ¼ 2
2 þ x2 Þðr 2 þ ðx
ðrmn mn mn mn  xc Þ Þ
3 Static synchronous compensator (statcom)
This model can be used to find the optimal location of
TCSC. STATCOM is a voltage source inverter which converts DC
voltage into AC voltage for compensating the active and
2.2 Optimal location of TCSC reactive power required by the system (Canizares 2000).
STATCOM can be used to handle the dynamic conditions of
The optimal location of TCSC can be found using reduc- system, like transient stability, damping of power oscillations
tion of total system reactive power loss method. This and is also used for voltage regulation (Masood et al. 2010).
method is based on the sensitivity of the total reactive Figure 4 represents the simple structure of STATCOM
power loss with respect to the control parameter (net line (Hussain and Subbaramiah 2013) and Fig. 5 demonstrates
series reactance connected between bus-m and bus-n) of that STATCOM exhibits constant current characteristics
the TCSC. when the voltage is over or under the required limit. This
Loss sensitivity factor can be expressed as: allows STATCOM to deliver constant reactive power at the
limits and can be used to control an increased transient
oQL rating both in inductive and capacitive regions.
amn ¼
oxmn
2 ð7Þ
rmn  x2mn 3.1 Static modeling
¼ ½Vm2 þ Vn2  2Vm Vn cos dmn 
2 þ x2 Þ2
ðrmn mn
In Fig. 4, STATCOM is installed for voltage profile
The most positive loss sensitivity index is the most
improvement at bus n.
suitable location for TCSC placement in reactive power
Vn0 \a0 is the voltage of bus n after placement of
loss reduction method.
STATCOM. Vm\d is the voltage of bus m, IL\h is current
Since FACTS devices are costly, it is not economical to
flow in line after installation of STATCOM and IStat-
install it on each and every line. So, the placement of
(a0 ? p/2) is the injected current by STATCOM. Now,
FACTS devices should be done in such a way that it  p
requires minimum cost. Vn0 \a0 ¼ Vm \d  ðR þ jXÞIL \h  ðR þ jXÞI Stat \ a0 þ
2
The cost of TCSC placement on line-l can be given by
ð10Þ
(Satyanarayana et al. 2011)
CTCSC ¼ 0:0015X 2  0:7130X þ 153:75 ð8Þ By equating real and imaginary parts of Eq. 10, we
obtain
where,  p
Vn0 cos a0 ¼ ReðVm \dÞ  ReðRIL \hÞ þ XIStat sin a0 þ
 2
CTCSC: cost of TCSC device p
X: operating range of TCSC  RIStat cos a0 þ
2
For the placement of TCSC, the objective function will be ð11Þ
"
P0 XNb
min F1 ¼ w1  loss þ w2  fðVn  Vmin Þ2
Ploss n¼1 ð9Þ
i
2
þðVn  Vmax Þ g þ w3  CTCSC  QTCSC

where,
Ploss: Total real power loss of network without TCSC
P0 loss: Total real power loss of network with TCSC
Vmin: Minimum tolerable voltage limits
Vmax: Maximum tolerable voltage limits
Vn: Voltage at nth bus
Nb: Number of buses Fig. 4 Single line diagram of two buses with STATCOM at bus n

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Vn0 ¼ Vn0 \a0 ð18Þ

p
IStat ¼ IStat \ða0 þ Þ ð19Þ
2
jQStat ¼ Vn0 IStat

ð20Þ
*denotes conjugate of complex variable
The phase angle of voltage at bus ‘n’, Current through
STATCOM and reactive power injected can be calculated
using Eqs. 18, 19 and 20 respectively.

3.2 Optimal location

The optimal location of STATCOM provides the minimum

possible losses and voltages come within their upper (1.05)
and lower (0.95) limits. Allowable rise in voltage, losses in
system and cost decides the size and optimal location of
STATCOM.
Fig. 5 STATCOM V–I Characteristics
Objective function for the optimal location of STAT-
 p COM can be given as
Vn0 sin a0 ¼ ImðVm \dÞ  ImðXIL \hÞ  XIStat cos a0 þ "
 2
p XNb
P0
 RIStat sin a0 þ min F2 ¼ w1  loss þ w2  fðVn  Vmin Þ2
2 Ploss n¼1 ð21Þ
ð12Þ i
2
þðVn  Vmax Þ g þ w3  Cstat  Qstat
Using the following notations
where,
a ¼ ReðVm \dÞ  ReðRIL \dÞ
b ¼ ImðVm \dÞ  ImðXIL \dÞ PLoss: Total real power loss of network without
STATCOM
c1 = R c2 = X d = Vn0 u = IStat and w = a0 Eqs. 11 and P0 loss: Total real power loss of network with STATCOM
12 can be written as Vmin: Minimum tolerable voltage limits
d cos w ¼ a þ c1 u sin w þ c2 u cos w ð13Þ Vmax: Maximum tolerable voltage limits
Vn: Voltage at nth bus
d sin w ¼ b þ c2 u sin w  c1 u cos w ð14Þ Nb: Number of buses
a, b, c1 and c2 are constants. Cstat: Cost of STATCOM in $/KVAR
The variables u and w can be calculated by: Qstat: Reactive power capacity of STATCOM in KVAR
d cos w  a w1, w2 and w3 are the weights provided to normalize the
u¼ ð15aÞ objective function
c1 sin w þ c2 cos w
d sin w  b
u¼ ð15bÞ
c2 sin w  c1 cos w 4 Results and discussion
By considering x = sin w and by equating Eq. 15a and
15b, we get The approach has been examined on IEEE-14 bus system
as shown in Fig. 6. If the load increases on few buses, the
ðk12 þ k22 Þx2  ð2k1 dc1 Þx þ ðd2 c21  k22 Þ ¼ 0 ð16Þ
problem of congestion may arise in the system. After the
where, k1 = ac2-bc1 and k2 = ac1-bc2 increment of load on some buses, line-10 (from bus-5 to
The solution of Eq. 16 is given as bus-6) crosses its rated limit and the system becomes
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi congested as indicated in Fig. 7. In order to relieve con-
2k1 dc1 ð2k1 dc1 Þ2  4ðk12 þ k22 Þðd2 c21  k22 Þ gestion from the system two FACTS Devices (TCSC and
x¼  STATCOM) are used in this paper.
2ðk12 þ k22 Þ 2ðk12 þ k22 Þ
For TCSC, Sensitivity indices can be given using reac-
a0 ¼ w ¼ sin1 x ð17Þ
tive power loss reduction method as shown in Table 1.
Now, the injected voltage, current and reactive power at Line no. 15, 7, 9 and 17 have the most positive sensitive
bus where STATCOM is installed is given as factors (as shown in bold color) in the table. So these lines

123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

were selected for the placement of TCSC in order to relieve Table 1 Sensitivity indices for IEEE-14 bus system
congestion. After placement of TCSC in line-15, (most TCSC From Bus Sensitivity
positive one) the problem of congestion doesn’t solve. So, in line- k m to n indices
TCSC was placed on other positive lines 7, 9 and 17 for
1 1–2 -0.597
congestion management. All these lines were able to solve
the problem of congestion from the system. 2 1–5 -0.2108
Now, the best location of TCSC was optimized among 3 2–3 -0.1113
these lines using Eq. 9. From the equation, objective 4 2–4 -0.1167
function F1 comes 0.2392, 0.2504 and 0.2589 for line 7, 9 5 2–5 -0.0828
and 17 respectively. So, line 7 (F1 = 0.2392) was chosen 6 3–4 -0.0264
as the best location of TCSC which can relieve congestion 7 4–5 -0.0021
as well as meeting the other constraints, i.e. minimum 8 4–7 -0.1039
power loss, cost, and voltage deviation from base voltage. 9 4–9 -0.0023
The optimal location of STATCOM was found using 10 5–6 -0.2091
Eq. 18. STATCOM should be placed on load buses only 11 6–11 -0.006
because generation bus can provide reactive power itself. 12 6–12 -0.1024
As can be seen from Eq. 21, using power loss factor, 13 6–13 -0.0279
voltage deviation and cost of the device as constraints, 14 7–8 -0.0047
objective function F2 can be found. For the optimal loca- 15 7–9 0.0001
tion of STATCOM the value of objective function F2 16 9–10 -0.0642
17 9–14 -0.0029
18 10–11 -0.003
19 12–13 -0.0067
20 13–14 -0.0443

should be minimum. After calculation, value of F2 was

Fig. 6 IEEE-14 bus network
Fig. 7 Power flow in congested system
0.8247, 0.3956, 0.3061, 0.2943 and 0.4005 respectively for
buses 5, 7, 9, 10 and 14. So, bus 10 (F2 = 0.2943) is
chosen as the best location for the placement of
STATCOM.
The cost of TCSC, as calculated using Eq. 5, is $153.4/
KVAR. The cost of STATCOM is being taken as $55/
KVAR given by Musunuri and Dehnavi (2010). From the
criteria of minimum objective function, the best location of
TCSC and STATCOM is line-7 and bus-10 respectively.
The MVAR injection for three different cases i.e. con-
gested case, with TCSC on line-7 and with STATCOM on
bus-10 can be shown from Fig. 8. Positive injection refers
to the MVAR supplied to the bus and negative injection
refers to the MVAR drawn from the bus by the load.
Figure 9 represents the real and reactive power losses in
all the three cases (Congested, with TCSC and With
STATCOM). It is clear from the figure that the real power
losses are comparable in all the cases whereas there is a
reasonable reduction in reactive power losses after placing
TCSC and STATCOM as compared to the congested case.
Reactive power losses are lesser with STATCOM as
compared to that with TCSC. So it can be inferred that the
placement of STATCOM provides more control on reac-
tive power losses as compared to the placement of TCSC.
The representation of voltages in p.u. in three different
cases at each bus of the network can be shown from

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
Fig. 8 MVAR injection on each bus
Fig. 9 Real and reactive power loss in three cases
Fig. 10 Voltage (p.u.) on each bus
Fig. 11 Loading on each line
Fig. 10. When TCSC in line-7 and STATCOM in bus-10
individually placed, there was no voltage violation at any
bus of the network. Hence, this can be an acceptable
solution for relieving the congestion.
Figure 11 shows the loading on each line with respect to
its maximum transfer capability limit. It is clearly visible
from the figure that initially there was congestion in line-10
as it crossed its maximum transfer capability limit. But after
the placement of TCSC and STATCOM individually in two
cases, line-10 reduced the flow of power and came under its
rated limit by changing the pattern of flow in the remaining
network. So, it can be inferred that the placement of TCSC
and STATCOM is effective for relieving congestion.
5 Conclusion
In deregulated power system, congestion is a major chal-
lenging issue. FACTS devices like TCSC and STATCOM
have emerged as a savior to this problem. These devices
control the power flows resulting in reduction of static limit
violation and losses, augmentation of stability margins and
accomplishment of contractual obligations. In this paper,
congestion is relieved using FACTS devices (TCSC and
STATCOM) by placing each individually in the IEEE-14
bus network. STATCOM provides higher voltage stability
margin than TCSC. Active and reactive power losses are
also lower in case of STATCOM than TCSC. Injecting
reactive power at the weakest bus using STATCOM can
improve the loading margin. TCSC on the other hand, is a
series compensation device, which inject reactive power
through the connected line. It directly does not affect the
voltage at buses but reduces reactive power loss in the
network, which further improves the voltage at each bus.
The criteria of selecting the FACTS device (TCSC or
STATCOM), depends on certain parameters. According to
123
 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

cost parameter TCSC can be selected, but if we give more
importance to active and reactive power loss and voltage
stability margin then STATCOM will be preferred. So,
depending on the application requirement and flexibility,
either of the two devices can be selected.
This technique can be beneficial for the placement of
FACTS device in networks like Indian grid where the load
demand varies rapidly. The Indian grid network is again
divided into five regional grids: northern region, eastern
region, western region, north-east region and southern
region. Western region grid has large supply while the
Northern region grid has large power demand and low
generation. The generation is ample in Western region, but
this available energy cannot be transferred to the Northern
region as the connecting link has a limited capacity and
results in congestion. So, the FACTS devices can be
installed in this connecting line to augment its capacity
which in turn allows large transfer of power from western
region grid to northern region grid.
Satyanarayana K, Prasad BKV, Devanand G, Siva Prasad N (2011)
Optimal location of TCSC with minimum installation cost using
PSO, Vol. 2. Int J Comput Sci Technol 1:156–160
Taher SA, Besharat H (2008) Transmission congestion management
by determinig optimal location of FACTS devices in deregulated
power systems. Am J Appl Sci 5(3):242–247
Yousefi A, Nguyen TT, Zareipour H, Malik OP (2012) Congestion
management using demand response and FACTS devices. Electr
Power Eng Syst 37:78–85
Zhang XP, Chong B, Godfrey KR, Yao L, Bazargan M, Schmitt L
(2007) Management of congestion costs utilizing FACTS
controllers in a bilateral electricity market environment. IEEE
Power Tech, Lausanne, pp 1244–1249
Anwar Shahzad Siddiqui

References

Brosda J, Handschin E (2001) Congestion management methods with Mohd Tauseef Khan
special consideration of FACTS devices. Proceedings of IEEE
Power Technology Conference, vol. 1, Porto, Portugal, 2001
Canizares (2000) Power flow and transient stability models of FACTS
controllers for voltage and angle stability studies. IEEE Power
Eng Soc Winter Meet 2:1447–1454
Gad M, Shinde P, Kulkarni SU (2012) Optimal location of TCSC by
sensitivity methods. Int J Comput Eng Res 2(6):162–168
Hingorani NG, Gyugyi L (2012) Understanding FACTS. IEEE Press,
New York
Huang GM, Yan P (2002) TCSC and SVC as re-dispatch tools for
congestion management and TTC improvement. Proceedings of
IEEE PES, Winter Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 660–665, 2002
Hussain SMS, Subbaramiah M (2013) An analytical approach for
optimal location of DSTATCOM in radial distribution system.
International Conference on Energy Efficient Technologies for Fahad Iqbal
Sustainability (ICEETS), Nagercoil, pp.1365–1369, 2013
Khan MT, Siddiqui AS (2014) Congestion management in deregu-
lated power system using FACTS device. Int J Syst Assur Eng
Manag. doi:10.1007/s13198-014-0258-x
Masood T, Aggarwal RK, Qureshi SA, Khan RA (2010) STATCOM
model against SVC control model performance analyses tech-
nique by MATLAB. International Conference on Renewable
Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’10), Spain, 2010
Musunuri S, Dehnavi G (2010) Comparison of STATCOM, SVC,
TCSC, and SSSC performance in steady state voltage stability
improvement. North American Power symposium (NAPS),
Arlington: 1–7, 2010
Mwanza K, Shi Y, Tuan LA (2007) Economic evaluation of FACTS
for congestion management in pool markets. IEEE Power Tech
Lausanne, Lausanne, pp 2053–2058
Rajalakshmi L, Suganyadevi MV, Parameswari S (2011) Congestion
management in deregulated power system by locating series
FACTS devices. Int J Comput Appl 13:19–22

123

View publication stats