Engineering, 2012, 4, 119-125

doi:10.4236/eng.2012.42015 Published Online February 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/eng)

A New Model for Transmission Network Expansion and

Reactive Power Planning in a Deregulated Environment
Amin Mahmoudabadi1*, Masoud Rashidinejad2, Majid Zeinaddini-Maymand1
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Anar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Anar, Iran
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
Email: *[email protected]

Received October 24, 2011; revised January 20, 2012; accepted January 27, 2012

ABSTRACT
Transmission network expansion planning (TNEP) is a challenging issue especially in new restructured electricity mar-
kets environment. TNEP can be incorporated with reactive power planning in which the operating conditions will be
satisfied. In this paper a combinatorial mathematical model has been presented to solve transmission expansion and
reactive power planning problem (TEPRPP) simultaneously. The proposed model is a non-convex problem having a
mixed integer nonlinear nature where the number of candidate solutions to be evaluated increases exponentially ac-
cording to the system size. The objective function of TEPRPP comprises the new circuits’ investment and production
costs as well as load curtailment penalty payments. A real genetic algorithm (RGA) aimed to obtaining a significant
quality solution to handle such a complicated problem has been employed. An interior point method (IPM) is applied to
solve the proposed concurrent optimization problem in the solution steps of TEPRPP model. This paper proposes a new
methodology for the best location as well as the capacity of VAr sources; it is tested on two well-known systems; the
Garver and IEEE 24-bus systems. The obtained results show the capability and the viability of the proposed TEPRPP
model incorporating operating conditions.

Keywords: Transmission Expansion Planning; Reactive Power Planning; Load Curtailment; Non-Convex Optimization

1. Introduction reactive power planning (RPP) are crucial issues espe-

cially in modern power systems. The objective of the
As the electricity consumption grows rapidly, new trans- simultaneous transmission expansion and reactive power
mission lines are necessary to provide alternative paths planning problem, referred to as TEPRPP. In fact, it is to
for power transfer from power plants to load centers ena- determine “where”, “how many” and “when” new devices
bling continuous supply. Transmission expansion plan- such as transmission lines and reactive power sources
ning (TEP) has been researched for a long time [1], while must be added to an existing network in order to make its
the earlier well cited work is developed by Garver [2]. performance viable for a pre-defined horizon of planning
Albeit, most of these studies only consider simplified at minimum total costs. The benchmark network of the
models like: transportation models (TM), hybrid models base year, the candidate lines and candidate load buses to
(HM), linear disjunctive model (LDM) and DC model [3]. install reactive sources, the power generation and power
Recently an accurate AC network modeling has been demand in a planning horizon associated with the in-
proposed in [4]. The use of the complete AC model in vestment constraints are the basic data for such combi-
the first phase is incipient but there are few technical natorial problem. In regulated power market TEPRPP
literatures on the subject [4-6]. Owing to the large-scale can be formulated as a large-scale mixed-integer nonlin-
nature of a transmission system and its complexities, ear optimization problem. Various optimization tech-
TEP has always been a complex non-convex optimiza- niques have been used to solve such a crucial problem.
tion problem. Developing a TEP model considering op- These methods are classified as classical optimization
erating conditions seems to be desired for better power techniques [7,8] as well as meta-heuristics such as Simu-
systems utilization. In this regard, reactive power sources lated Annealing [9], Genetic Algorithms [10], Tabu Search
are desired for: increasing power transfer, improving [11] and Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure
power factor, reducing real power losses, and maintain- (GRASP) [12].
ing voltage profile in a permissible range. Thus, TEP and On the other hand, electricity industry restructuring in
*
Corresponding author. recent years has resulted in the separation of generation

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

120 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL.

V V V

N  N S  
and transmission systems and the introduction of com- (8)

 N  N0 S
petitive power markets. Restructuring and deregulation

N  N S  
0 from
has exposed transmission planner to new objectives and (9)

 N  N0 S
uncertainties. Therefore, new criteria and approaches are 0 to
needed for transmission planning in deregulated envi- (10)
ronments. Two main issues can be emphasized for the 0nn (11)
differences between planning in regulated and deregu-
lated environment from view point of transmission plan- where: c and n represent the circuit costs’ vector and the
ners. 1) The objectives of TEP in deregulated power sys- added lines’ vector, respectively. N and N 0 are diago-
tems differ from those of the regulated ones; 2) The un- nal matrices containing the integer-valued vector n and

tively. f  q, u  is the cost function of reactive power

certainties in deregulated power systems are much more the existing circuits in the base configuration, respec-
than in regulated ones [13]. The main objective of TEP in
deregulated power systems is to provide a nondiscrimi- (VAr) sources, q is the MVAr size of VAr sources vector.
natory and competitive environment for all stakeholders, u is the binary vector that indicates whether to install
while maintaining desired power systems reliability. TEP reactive power sources at load buses or not and has inte-
affects the interests of market participants unequally and ger value. v0 is the investment due to adding new cir-
this should be considered in transmission planning. The cuits to the network and v1 is the costs of VAr sources.

cuits that can be added.  is the unbounded phase angle

objective of the market-based TEP problem is to opti- n is a vector containing the maximum number of cir-
mize the transmission network topology by selecting the
new circuits that should be added to an existing trans- vector, while PG and QG are the existing real and
mission network so as to minimize the overall generation reactive power generation vectors. Similarly, PD and
and transmission costs. It is subjected to operating condi- QD are the real and reactive power demand vectors; V
tions for generating units and transmission network. In is the voltage magnitude vector; PG , QG and V are
order to establish an effective and efficient TEP, this the vectors of maximum real and reactive power genera-
paper considers lines as well as reactive sources invest- tion limits and voltage magnitudes, respectively; and
ment costs, load curtailment penalties, and real power ge- P G , Q G and V are the vectors of minimum real and
neration costs to reform transmission planning model reactive power generation limits and voltage magnitudes.
under a deregulated environment. The proposed model is In this paper 105% and 95% of the nominal value are
more complicated than traditional model addressed in used for the maximum and minimum voltage magnitude
literature, therefore a real genetic algorithm (RGA) is limits, respectively. S from , S to and S are the appar-
used to solve TEPRPP via an AC model. It should be ent power flow vectors (MVA) through the branches in
notified that an interior point method (IPM) is employed both terminals and their limits. The first objective func-
to solve NLP problems that must be solved during the tion considers only the expansion costs of transmission
solution steps of RGA. lines while the second objective function considers the
minimum costs of VAR sources that can be installed.
2. TEPRPP Mathematical Model The limits for real and reactive power in the generators
are expressed by Equations (5) and (6) respectively; and
TEPRPP problem is usually refers as a static transmis- for VAr sources by (7) while voltage magnitudes are
sion model, while the most often used mathematic for- restricted by (8). Capacity limits (MVA) of the line flows
mulation for a static TEPRPP is formulated as a mixed are presented by (9) and (10), while capacity constraints
integer nonlinear optimization problem as shown below. of the newly added circuits are shown by (11). The costs
min v0  cT n
f  q, u     c0k  c1k qk  uk
of VAR sources can be defined as follows:
(1)
min v1  f  q, u 
(12)
(2) k l

where: k  l represents the load buses, l is the set

P V ,  , n   PG  PD  0
s.t.
of all load buses; and c0 k and c1k are the installation
(3)

Q V ,  , n   QG  QD  q  0
costs and unit costs for a VAr source at bus k. qk is the
(4) MVAr size of a VAr source installed at bus k and uk is
a binary variable that indicates whether to install reactive
P G  PG  PG (5) power source at bus k or not. Equations (3) and (4) rep-

Q G  QG  QG
resent the conventional equations of AC power flow con-
(6) sidering n, the number of circuits (lines and transform-
qqq
ers), and q, the size of VAr sources treated as variables.
(7) Due to deregulation of power markets, the general TEP

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL. 121

P V ,  , n   PG  PD  PC  0
model that only considers the investment costs may not equations of AC power flow must be reform as follow:
be suitable to the new environment of power markets. (16)

Q V ,  , n   QG  QD  QC  q  0
Thus a new TEPRPP model needs to take the advantage
of deregulated environment incorporating investment (17)
costs, load curtailment penalties, and real power gener-
ating costs. Here, PC and QC are active and reactive load cur-
tailment.
3. Proposed TEPRPP Mathematical Model In the proposed model the additional constraints are
the following real and reactive power limitations.
0  PC  PD
This section provides a new mathematical model for the
TEPRPP problem in a deregulated environment. The (18)
optimization model is a mixed-integer nonlinear pro- 0  QC  QD
The elements of vectors P V ,  , n  and Q V ,  , n 
(19)
gramming problem that identifies the optimum solution
among tradeoffs between production costs, transmission
are determined by Equations (20) and (21) respectively.

Pi V ,  , n   Vi  V j Gij  n  cos ij  Bij  n  sin ij 

investments and load curtailment costs. Given the net-
work topology, network devices parameters (e.g. line (20)
resistance, reactance and suseptance), generators’ data j N B

Qi V ,  , n   Vi  V j Gij  n  sin ij  Bij  n  cos ij  (21)

(e.g. capacities and costs) and projected system load lev-
els, the OPF can provide: the voltage profiles of all nodes,
j N B

where i, j  N B represent buses and N B is the set of

the power flows of all transmission lines, and the power
outputs of all generators. In other words, OPF calculation

and ij  i   j is the difference in phase angle be-

determines how generators and the transmission network all buses, ij represents the circuit between buses i and j
should be operated to satisfy the operational constraints
of the network. tween buses i and j. The elements of the bus admittance

 
The objective function of the new TEPRPP is the matrix (G and B) are:
Gij  n    nij gij  nij0 gij0 
summation of the costs of new lines and VAr source in-
 
 
G
Gii  n    nij gij  nij gij

vestment, real power generation as well as load curtail-


ment costs. The objective function is expressed as fol- (22)
 
0 0



 
lows:
Minimize T  L  G  I
 Bij  n    nij bij  nij0 bij0
j l

 
(13)
 
   
B 
 Bii  n   bi    nij bij  bij  nij bij  bij

where: T represents total costs; L represents the cost of

jl 
 
0
load curtailment; G represents production costs under the
 
sh sh 0 0 sh

optimal dispatching conditions; and I represents the in-

vestment costs that is summation of line investment and (23)
VAr sources investment. sh
Here, gij , bij and b are the conductance, suscep- ij
Investment cost is determined as the total expansion
transformer ij (if ij is a transformer bijsh  0 ), respect-
tance and shunt susceptance of the transmission line or
investment over the planning period formulated by Equa-

I  C T n  f  q, u 
tion (14).
tively; and bish is the shunt susceptance at bus i, while
(14) the proposed model does not consider the phase shifters.
Elements (ij) of vectors S from and S to of (9) and (10)
Real power generation costs is assumed in a quadratic
are given by the following relationship:

   P   Q 
form that is shown by Equation (15).

G    i PGi2  i PGi  ci Sijfrom 

n 2 2
from from

 V g  V V  g cos   b sin  
(15) ij ij (24)
i 1

 V  b  b   V V  g sin   b cos ij  (26)

Pijfrom 2
(25)
generator on bus i;  i ,  i and ci are the constant
where: PGi represents the real power generation of the i ij i j ij ij ij ij

Qijfrom 2 sh

 P   Q 
i ij ij i j ij ij ij
coefficients of power generation; n is number of genera-

Sijto 
tors. Costs of load curtailment depend on the electricity to
2
to
2

 V g  V V  g cos   b sin  
price in a time of use (TOU) fashion. In Europe, it is ij ij (27)
usually assumed to be 30 - 60 times the regular electric-

 V  b  b   V V  g sin   b cos  ij 
ity price [14], where for the sake of conservation in this Pijto j
2
ij i j ij ij ij ij (28)
paper it is assumed almost 10 times of electricity price.
Equations (3) and (4) that represented the conventional Qijto j
2 sh
ij ij i j ij ij ij (29)

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

122 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL.

The integer vector variable n, i.e. the number of cir- in terms of cost, while those individuals that their in-
cuits added in branch ij, and the binary variable u, that vestments are too high will be pruned.
shows the connection or disconnection of VAr sources to 4) AC optimal power flow with generation costs and
a load bus, are the most important decision variables reactive power investment is solved via Interior Point
such that any feasible production solution of power sys- Method [6].
tem depends on their values. 5) The results of OPF are used to calculate the RGA
The proposed algorithm is implemented in the AMPL fitness function.
(A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming) 6) When OPF is solved for the entire set of individuals;
platform. AMPL is a language for large scale mathe- selection, recombination and mutation are carried out ar
matical programming and optimization in many applica- new generation is constructed. If all individuals are the
tions such as production, distribution, scheduling and etc same and there is no new individual, the process can be
[15]. To solve TEPRPP problem, an RGA code is devel- stopped.
oped in AMPL platform that is shown in Figure 1.
Different steps to find the optimum solution is as fol- 4. Illustrative Tests
lows, while the details of RGA used here are in [5].
1) Read network data including: candidate lines and For the sake of methodology implementation two general
candidate buses for VAr sources. test systems; The Garver system and IEEE 24-bus system;
2) Initialize first generation randomly; each individual were simulated. In this study a fixed cost of c0 = 1000$
is chosen at random. The individuals are represented by a and 3 $/KVAr is assumed as a variable cost of VAr
vector consists of number of new lines that are proposed source [3] while the penalty of load curtailment is as-
to be added to respective branches. Each member (gene) sumed 150 $/MW-h [16]. For better comparison the cost
of this vector may vary from zero to the maximum num- of power losses 1500 $/KW is assumed [17].
ber of lines.
3) Feasibility checking; each chromosome is checked 4.1. Garver System
The Garver system has 6 buses and 15 branch candidates,
Read network data, candidate lines and candidate the total demand is 760 MW, 152 MVAr and a maximum
location of VAr sources 5 lines can be added to each branch [4]. Table 1 shows
generation cost functions for Garver system. Figure 2
shows the single line diagram of the Garver system.
Initialize first generation randomly The planning process resulted in a line investment of
110 million$ and the following lines are added: n2-6 = 1,
n3-5 = 1, n4-6 = 2. The total active power losses is 14.15
MW and a total 183.63 MVAr reactive power source
Check feasibility
must be installed at buses 2, 4 and 5. Tables 2 and 3
show a comparison between the results of the proposed
model and the results addressed in literature [4].
Solve AC optimal power flow and embed
reactive power sources
4.2. IEEE 24-Bus System
This system has 24 buses, 41 circuits [4]. The single line
Calculate Fitness function diagram of IEEE 24-bus system is shown in Figure 3
and Table 4 show the generation data. The results in
Table 5 show that 9 reactive sources should be installed
Selection, Crossover and Mutation Population at different load buses while the following lines will be
replacement
added: n1-5 = 1, n6-10 = 1, n7-8 = 2 to the present topology.
The line investment cost is $70 million and the Invest-

Table 1. Quadratic generation cost functions.

Convergence?
Generator Cost Function ($) Maximum Capacity (MW)
No
Yes
G1 0.01 × P2 + 20 × P + 150 160
End G3 2
0.03 × P + 30 × P + 180 370
2
G6 0.02 × P + 25 × P + 100 610
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the optimization.

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL. 123

80.0 MW
240.00 MW
160 MVAR 18
48.00 MVAR 17

5 1

21 22 16 19 20

15 14 23
3

40.00 MW 13
8.00 MVAR

24 11 12
2

3 9 10

4 4 8 7 6
6
160.00 MW
32.00 MVAR
1 2 5
Figure 2. Single line diagram of the garver system.

Table 2. Results of the proposed model for the garver system. Figure 3. IEEE 24-bus system.
Expanding VAr Sources Power Generation Power Loss
Lines (MVAr) (MW) (MW) Table 4. Quadratic generation cost function.
n2-6 = 1 Q2 = 75,59 G1 = 160.0 Generator Cost Function ($) Capacity (MW)
Proposed
n3-5 = 1 Q4 = 77.23 G3 = 309.62 14.15 G1 0.014 × P2 + 16 × P + 212 576
Model
2
n4-6 = 2 Q5 = 31.81 G6 = 267.83 G2 0.014 × P + 16 × P + 212 576
2
G7 0.052 × P + 43 × P + 781 900
n2-6 = 1 G1 = 159.13
Model in G13 0.007 × P2 + 48 × P + 832 1773
n3-5 = 1 Q5 = 49.45 G3 = 347.92 14.88
[4]
G15 0.328 × P2 + 58 × P + 86 645
n4-6 = 2 G6 = 267.83 2
G16 0.008 × P + 12 × P + 382 465
2
Table 3. Cost comparison for the garver system (million $). G18 0.0002 × P + 4 × P + 395 1200

G21 0.0002 × P2 + 4 × P + 395 1200

Lines VAr Production Power Losses Total
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost G22 0 × P2 + 0.01 × P + 0.01 900
Proposed Model 110 0.554 223.266 21.25 355.07 G23 2
0.008 × P + 12 × P + 382 1980

Model in [4] 110 0.150 227.637 22.32 360.10

change the trajectory of power flow that may have a se-
vere impact on real power losses. Despite the fact that
ment cost of reactive power sources is about $ 5.894 mil-
power losses is increased but total costs has been de-
lion. By comparing these results with those reported from
creased significantly.
model in [4] that is shown in Table 6, the average in-
vestment cost of the transmission lines and production
cost decreases significantly. As it can be seen, power
5. Conclusion
losses increases because in this study power losses is not Traditional transmission expansion planning needs be
considered as a term in objective function while gene- revised to become more suitable to deregulated environ-
rally any change in power generation pattern may ment, hence in this paper, a new model to solve TEPRPP

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

124 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL.

Table 5. Results of proposed model and traditional model of the results show a significant saving in terms of total
for IEEE 24-bus system. investment.
Expanding VAr Sources Power Generation Power Losses
Lines (MVAr) (MW) (MW)
REFERENCES
G1 = 576
Q3 = 302.5 [1] G. Latorre, R. D. Cruz, J. M. Areiza and A. Villegas,
G2 = 576
Q4 = 69.1 “Classification of Publication and Models on Transmis-
G7 = 900 sion Expansion Planning,” IEEE Transaction on Power
Q5 = 78.8
G13 = 1567.4 Systems, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003 , pp. 938-946.
n1-5 = 1 Q8 = 146.9
Proposed G15 = 423.8 doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2003.811168
315.71
Model n7-8 = 2 Q10 = 198.8
G16 = 0
n6-10 = 1 Q11 = 91.5 [2] L. L. Garver, “Transmission Network Estimation Using
G18 = 742.4
Q12 = 754.9 Linear Programming,” IEEE Transaction on Power Sys-
G21 = 1200 tems, Vol. 89, No. 8, 1970, pp. 2025-2034 .
Q19 = 21.4
G22 = 900
Q24 = 297.7 [3] R. Romero, A. Monticelli, A. Garcia and S. Haffner,
G23 = 1980
“Test Systems and Mathematical Models for Transmis-
G1 = 535.1 sion Network Expansion planning,” IEE Proceedings—
G2 = 571.2 Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 149, No.
G7 = 782.1 1, 2002, pp. 27-36. doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:20020026
G13 = 1683.1 [4] M. J. Rider, A. V. Garcia and R. Romero, “Power System
n7-8 = 1
Model in Q3 = 348.6 G15 = 618.3 Transmission Network Expansion Planning Using AC
n6-10 = 1 272.9
[4] Q9 = 500.3 G16 = 440.8 Model,” IEE Proceedings—Generation, Transmission and
n14-16 = 1
G18 = 1049.4 Distribution, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2007, pp. 731-742.
G21 = 1071.8 doi:10.1049/iet-gtd:20060465
G22 = 817.5 [5] M. Rahmani, M. Rashidinejad and R. Romero, “Efficient
G23 = 1251.9 Method for AC Transmission Network Expansion Plan-
ning,” Electric Power System Research, Vol. 80, No. 9,
Table 6. Cost comparison for 24-bus system (million $). 2010, pp. 1056-1064. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2010.01.012
[6] A. Mahmoudabadi, M. Rashidinejad, M. Mohammadian,
Lines VAr Production Power Losses Total M. Zeinaddini-Maymand, M. Rahmani and H. Khorasani,
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost “An Application of CHA to Concurrent Short-Term Trans-
Proposed Model 70 5.894 3078.8 473.5 3628.2 mission Expansion & Reactive Power Planning,” IEEE
Powertech Conference, Trondheim, 19-23 June 2011, pp.
Model in [4] 86 2.55 3509.8 409.3 4007.7 1-6.
[7] S. Binato, M. V. F. Pereira and S. Granville, “A New
Benders Decomposition Approach to Solve Power Trans-
problem under deregulated environment was presented.
mission Network Design Problems,” IEEE Transaction
The fitness function of proposed model is related to the on Power Systems, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2001, pp. 373-380.
new transmission line investment, the costs of VAr
[8] R. Romero and A. Monticelli, “A Hierarchical Decompo-
sources associated with production cost and cost of load sition Approach for Transmission Network Expansion
curtailment. Due to the complexity of this formulation, a Planning,” IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 9,
real genetic algorithm is utilized to solve TEPRPP prob- No. 1, 1994, pp. 373-380. doi:10.1109/59.317588
lems based on AC models. Moreover, an Interior Point [9] R. A. Gallego, A. B. Alves, A. Monticelli and R. Romero,
Method (IPM) is applied to solve an OPF as a Non Lin- “Parallel Simulated Annealing Applied to Long Term
ear Programming (NLP) during the solution steps of the Transmission Network Expansion Planning,” IEEE Trans-
RGA. The main contribution of this model is to handle action on Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1997, pp. 181-
TEP and RPP simultaneously in deregulated market, 188.
where it can achieve a better solution in comparison with [10] R. A. Gallego, A. Monteicelli and R. Romero, “Trans-
traditional model. The proposed TEPRPP model is tested mission Systems Expansion Planning by Extended Ge-
netic Algorithms,” IEE Proceedings—Generation, Trans-
on two well-known systems: Garver and IEEE 24-bus.
mission and Distribution, Vol. 145, No. 3, 1998, pp. 329-
The obtained results show significant performance and 335. doi:10.1049/ip-gtd:19981895
robustness of the proposed model. Results from different
[11] E. L. Da Silva, J. M. A. Orteiz, G. C. De Oliveira and S.
case studies are compared with the results presented in Binato, “Transmission Network Expansion Planning under
[4], which is one of the major references available at the a Tabu Search Approach,” IEEE Transaction on Power
time of this research. In this paper it has also been shown Systems, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001, pp. 62-68.
that by implementing the proposed model, the total costs doi:10.1109/59.910782
of investment and production cost can be decreased sig- [12] S. Binato, G. C. De Oliveira, et al., “A Greedy Random-
nificantly. On the other hand, the economic evaluations ized Adaptive Search Procedure for Transmission Expan-

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG

 A. MAHMOUDABADI ET AL. 125

sion Planning,” IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming,”
16, No. 2, 2001, PP. 247-253. 2nd Edition, Duxbury Press, Duxbury, 1997.
[13] P. Georgilakis, C. Karytsas and P. G. Vernados, “Genetic [16] R. C. Leou, “A Multi-Year Transmission Planning under
Algorithm Solution to the Market-Based Transmission Ex- a Deregulated Market,” Electrical Power and Energy Sys-
pansion Planning Problem,” Optoelectronics and advanced tems, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2011, pp. 708-714.
materials, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1120-1125. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.11.020
[14] M. Xie, J. Zhong and F. F. Wu, “Multiyear Transmission [17] A. Karami, M. Rashidinejad and A. A. Gharaveisi, “Volt-
Expansion Planning Using Ordinal Optimization,” IEEE age Security Enhancement and Congestion Management
Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007, pp. via STATCOM & IPFC Using Artificial Intelligence,”
1420-1428. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2007.907160 Iranian Journal of science & Technology, Vol. 31, No. 1,
[15] R. Fourer, D. M. Gay and B. W. Kernighan “AMPL: A pp. 289-301.

Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ENG