Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial

Intelligence

ISSN: 0952-813X (Print) 1362-3079 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/teta20

A novel symbiotic organisms search algorithm

for congestion management in deregulated
environment

Sumit Verma, Subhodip Saha & V. Mukherjee

To cite this article: Sumit Verma, Subhodip Saha & V. Mukherjee (2015): A novel symbiotic
organisms search algorithm for congestion management in deregulated environment, Journal
of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, DOI: 10.1080/0952813X.2015.1116141

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1116141

Published online: 11 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=teta20

Download by: [RMIT University] Date: 10 January 2016, At: 23:35

 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1116141

A novel symbiotic organisms search algorithm for congestion

management in deregulated environment
Sumit Verma, Subhodip Saha and V. Mukherjee
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In today’s competitive electricity market, managing transmission congestion Congestion management;
in deregulated power system has created challenges for independent deregulation; independent
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

system operators to operate the transmission lines reliably within the limits. system operator; optimal
power flow; price bids;
This paper proposes a new meta-heuristic algorithm, called as symbiotic
symbiotic organism
organisms search (SOS) algorithm, for congestion management (CM)
problem in pool-based electricity market by real power rescheduling of
generators. Inspired by interactions among organisms in ecosystem, SOS
algorithm is a recent population-based algorithm which does not require
any algorithm specific control parameters unlike other algorithms. Various
security constraints such as load bus voltage and line loading are taken into
account while dealing with the CM problem. In this paper, the proposed SOS
algorithm is applied on modified IEEE 30- and 57-bus test power system for
the solution of CM problem. The results, thus, obtained are compared to
those reported in the recent state-of-the-art literature. The efficacy of the
proposed SOS algorithm for obtaining the higher quality solution is also
established.

1. Introduction
1.1. General
Before restructuring of power system, the power grids were, usually, used to be operated by vertically
integrated utilities. These utilities had common control over both the generation and the transmission
facilities. Generating, transmitting and distributing companies are working as independent entities but,
after unbundling of power system, it has become a challenge for independent system operators (ISOs)
to operate the system in synchronism under this changed scenario (Lai, 2001).
Congestion is the difference in megawatts of the power scheduled to flow in a transmission line and
the actual transfer which is allowed in the line without violating any constraints (Christie, Wollenberg, &
Wangensteen, 2000). The capability of transmission lines to transmit the electric power is restricted by
several transfer limits such as stability limit, thermal limit and voltage limit. The power system is said to be
congested when any of these parameters has reached to its maximum limit. Moreover, the deregulation
of electrical industries has unfolded a competitive environment among all the market players which,
in turn, has added complexity in the operation of the power system (Yamina & Shahidehpour, 2003).
Outage of the lines, inadequate reactive power support, failure of equipment and weather diversity are
some of the causes of congestion causing real threat to power system security which may also result

CONTACT  V. Mukherjee  vivek_agamani@yahoo.com 

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2    S. Verma et al.

in electricity price hike. Congestion management (CM) takes action or control measures to relieve
the congestion of transmission networks. The methods, usually, adopted for CM includes generation
rescheduling, load shedding, line switching, market splitting, zonal pricing, etc.

1.2.  Literature review

Various CM techniques have been reported in the literature in recent years to represent the various
ways to deal with the CM problem. Researchers have proposed several methods in the literature like
rescheduling of power, load curtailment, use of flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) devices in
addition to the optimisation techniques for relieving the congestion of the lines.
CM problem has been explained in detail in Christie et al. (2000) and the authors of this work have
considered that controlling the transmission system so that transfer limits are observed is perhaps the
fundamental transmission management problem. A detailed analysis of different CM techniques, used in
different electricity markets throughout the world, may be found in Bompard, Correia, Gross, and Amelin
(2003). An approach has been proposed by Jian and Lamont (2001) which minimises both the service
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

and the congestion cost to identify the services of reactive power support and real power loss. Alomoush
and Shahidehpour (2000) have proposed a technique for minimising the number of adjustments of
preferred schedules to alleviate congestion and control schemes to minimise interactions between
zones. A method for selection of participating generators, based on sensitivity to current flow on con-
gested line as well as the generation bids, has been presented by Talukdar, Sinha, Mukhopadhyaya, and
Bose (2005). The generation rescheduling for CM with three block structure, offered by the generating
companies (GENCOs), has been discussed and implemented in Kumar and Mittapalli (2014) for hybrid
market model considering the impacts of constant impedance, current and power. In Balaraman and
Kamaraj (2011), an efficient particle swarm optimization (PSO) method is used for real power resched-
uling of generator for transmission CM in deregulated environment. Unit commitment problem has
been solved by using simulated annealing (SA) in Zhuang and Galiana (1990). Random search method
(RSM) for solving various optimisation problems has been discussed by Jang, Sun, and Mizutani (1996).
Rescheduling of generators for CM with FACTS in deregulated electricity market (considering voltage
stability constraint, loadability and line security limits) has been proposed by Kumar and Sekhar (2013).
In Balaraman and Kamaraj (2010), real-coded genetic algorithm (GA) (RCGA) has been utilised to find
out the optimal generation rescheduling for CM in deregulated environment. A new probabilistic com-
posite transmission expansion planning methodology which does not require a priori specification of
generation and transmission lines capacities has been presented in Gupta, Shekhar, and Kalra (2014).
Nature has always inspired researchers. Nature-inspired algorithms have shown their potential and
have, thus, become popular and are being extensively used by the researchers. Most of these algorithms
are based on swarm intelligence (Yang, 2010a) like artificial bee colony (Karaboga & Basturk, 2007), firefly
algorithm (FA) (Yang, 2010b), flower pollination algorithm (FPA) (Yang, Karamanoglu, & He, 2014), bat
algorithm (BA) (Yang, 2011) and so on.
Cheng and Prayogo (2014) have introduced a novel optimisation technique and have named it as
symbiotic organisms search (SOS) algorithm. It is based on the symbiotic interaction strategies that
organisms use to survive in the ecosystem. The main advantage of the SOS algorithm over most other
meta-heuristic algorithms is that the operation of this algorithm requires no algorithm specific param-
eters. SOS algorithm has been found to be very efficient in solving engineering optimisation problems
with very fast convergence rate and less computational time (Cheng & Prayogo, 2014).

1.3. Motivation
The major motivation behind this work is to propose a new technique for solving CM problem. Several
techniques have been adopted by the researchers to solve the CM problem as stated in the literature
survey. However, most of them are based on evolutionary and swarm intelligence concept. These tech-
niques have some common control parameters like size of population and number of generations.
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   3

Apart from these control parameters, some algorithms possess some specific control parameters like
PSO utilises inertia weights and cognitive parameters. GA uses mutation and crossover rate. Similarly,
harmony search requires pitch adjusting rate, memory consideration rate, etc. Proper tuning of these
parameters is essential, otherwise, it may seriously affect the performance of the optimisation algorithm
and the obtained results may even diverge.
Keeping these aspects in mind, the present paper has utilised the concept of SOS algorithm which
is independent of control parameters platform. The qualities associated with the SOS algorithm are
that (Cheng & Prayogo, 2014):
(a) it does not have any algorithm specific control parameters;
(b) it is efficient, consistent and accurate;
(c) only common control parameters are sufficient to tune and
(d) it requires less computational efforts.
The main aim of the present paper is to propose an algorithm for solving CM problem of power
system in deregulated environment for various contingencies by rescheduling real power output of
generator with minimum cost. To accomplish this task, SOS algorithm is proposed in this paper. Thus,
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

the main motivation of the present work is to aid ISO to relieve the overloading of the lines in an
­optimal manner.

1.4. Contribution
The main contributions of this work are to:
(a) project a novel SOS algorithm, as an effective optimising tool, to minimise the rescheduling
cost under different studied cases,
(b) remove effectively the overloaded lines caused due to various considered contingencies
with minimum shift in generation,
(c) minimise the total amount of rescheduling and losses for various studied cases and
(d) demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed SOS algorithm over the others for this
specific application.

1.5.  Paper layout

The structure of the present paper is as follows: Section 2 introduces the mathematical formulation
of the CM problem. SOS algorithm is explained in Section 3. Section 4 deals with SOS algorithm for
CM application. Section 5 presents the numerical results and Section 6 draws the concluding remarks.

2.  Mathematical problem formulation

The main objective of CM is to minimise the congestion cost while satisfying the network constraints.
In the present work, the CM problem is solved by rescheduling (increasing or decreasing) the real
power output of generators. But the change in real power output is associated with cost which, in turn,
depends upon the price bids submitted by the GENCOs. The present problem may be stated as in (1)
(Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011)
Minimise
∑ + −
Cc = (Ck ΔPGj + Dk ΔPGj ) $∕h
(1)
j𝜀Ng

where Cc , Ck , Dk , ΔPGj
+
represent the total cost incurred for changing real power output ($/h),
−
and ΔPGj
incremental price bid submitted by the GENCOs ($/MWh), the decremental price bid submitted by
GENCOs ($/MWh), the real power increment of generator (MW) and the real power decrement of gen-
erator (MW), respectively. The present optimisation problem is subjected to the equality and inequality
constraints as stated in the two next sub-sections.
 4    S. Verma et al.

2.1.  Equality constraints

The equality constraints of CM represent the power flow equations as stated in (2)–(5) (Kothari & Dhillon,
2011)
∑| | | |
PGk − PDk = |Vj |||Vk |||Ykj | cos(𝛿k − 𝛿j − 𝜃kj ); j = 1, 2, … , Nb (2)
| | | |
j

∑| | | |
QGk − QDk = |Vj |||Vk |||Ykj | sin(𝛿k − 𝛿j − 𝜃kj ); j = 1, 2, … , Nb (3)
| | | |
j

C + −
PGk = PGk + ΔPGk − ΔPGk ; k = 1, 2, … , Ng (4)
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

C
PDj = PDj ; j = 1, 2, … , Nd (5)

where PGk and QGk are the generated active and reactive power at bus k, respectively; PDk and QDk are the
active and reactive load power at bus k, respectively; Vj and Vk are the voltages at bus j and k, respectively;
δj and δk are the bus voltage angle of bus j and k, respectively; θkj is the admittance angle of the lines
connected between k and j; Nb, Ng, Nd are the number of buses, generators and loads, respectively; PGk C

and PDj are the active power produced by generator k and the active power consumed by load bus j,
C

respectively, as obtained by the market clearing value.

It is to be noted here that (2) and (3) represent the active and reactive power balances at each node
whereas (4) and (5) represent the final power as a function of market clearing price.

2.2.  Inequality constraints

The inequality constraints represent the operating and physical limit of all the transmission lines, trans-
formers and generators as stated in (6)–(10) (Kothari & Dhillon, 2011)
min max
PGk ≤ PGk ≤ PGk , ∀k ∈ Ng (6)

min max
QGk ≤ QGk ≤ QGk , ∀k ∈ Ng (7)

min min max max

(PGk − PGk ) = ΔPGk ≤ ΔPGk ≤ ΔPGk = (PGk − PGk ) (8)

Vnmin ≤ Vn ≤ Vnmax , ∀n ∈ Nl (9)

Pij ≤ Pijmax (10)

where the superscripts min and max represent the minimum and the maximum values of the respected
variables and Nl represents the number of lines.
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   5

3.  Proposed SOS algorithm

The SOS algorithm is inspired from the symbiotic interactions observed between two organisms in the
ecosystem and it is recently developed by Cheng and Prayogo (2014). The basic concept of symbiosis
and the overview of SOS algorithm are discussed in the next two sub-sections.

3.1.  Symbiosis: basic concept

The word ‘symbiosis’ is actually derived from a Greek word which means ‘living together’. In 1869, German
mycologist de Bary first used this word to define the relationship between two different species of
organisms that are interdependent. Symbiotic relationships are, broadly, divided into two types such
as obligate and facultative. In obligate relationship, both the organism entirely depends on each other
for their survival whereas, in facultative relationship, the organisms may depend on each other but it
is not mandatory.
Three types of symbiotic relationships are found in nature. These are mutualism, commensalism
and parasitism. Mutualism refers to the relationship between two different species of organisms where
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

both the individuals get benefitted. Commensalism describes the symbiotic relationship between two
organisms in which one benefits and the other is not, significantly, affected. Parasitism is the kind of
symbiotic relationship where one organism is benefitted and the other is, effectively, harmed. Living
organisms undergo symbiotic relationships in order to adapt themselves in the environment and, hence,
they improve their fitness to survive in the ecosystem over long term.

3.2.  SOS: features

Unlike other meta-heuristic algorithms like PSO, FA, FPA, BA, etc. (which mimic natural phenomena),
SOS algorithm replicates the symbiotic interactions between organisms that are used to find the fittest
organism in the search space. Similar to other population-based algorithms, SOS algorithm also employs
a population of candidate solutions to seek the optimal global solution.
SOS algorithm commences with an initial population of organisms which is called as ecosystem.
Each organism of the ecosystem is considered as a candidate solution to the corresponding problem
and is correlated to a certain fitness value which imitates a certain degree of adaptation to the desired
objective. The new solutions are generated by simulating the symbiotic interactions between two
organisms in the ecosystem which includes the mutualism, commensalism and parasitism phases. Each
organism in the ecosystem randomly interacts with the other through all these three phases and this
process of interaction is repeated until the termination criterion is fulfilled. The details of operation of
these three phases of symbiotic interaction are provided in the next three sub-sections.

3.2.1.  Mutualism phase

This phase of SOS algorithm mimics the mutualistic interaction between two organisms where both
the organisms are benefitted. One example of mutualism is the relation between oxpecker and zebra.
Oxpeckers eat ticks and parasites from zebra’s skin. In this way, oxpeckers get food and zebra gets pest
control. Also, when danger comes, the oxpeckers fly and scream that helps zebra to be alert and escape.
In this phase, Xi is considered as ith organism in the ecosystem and another organism Xj is selected
randomly to interact with Xi. Both the organisms exhibit a mutualistic relationship to increase their
mutual survival advantage in the ecosystem and the new solutions for Xi and Xj are given by (11) and
(12) respectively,
( )
Xinew = Xi + rand(0, 1) × Xbest − Mutual_Vector × BF1 (11)

( )
Xjnew = Xj + rand(0, 1) × Xbest − Mutual_Vector × BF2 (12)
 6    S. Verma et al.

Xi + Xj
Mutual_Vector = (13)
2
where rand(0, 1) is a random number between 0 and 1, BF1 and BF2 are the benefit factors and their
values are either 1 or 2. These factors represent the level of benefit to each organism as the organisms
may get partially or fully benefitted from the interaction. Mutual_Vector, in (13), represents the rela-
tionship between Xi and Xj. The later parts of both (11) and (12) represent the mutualistic effort given
by the organisms to increase their degree of adaptation to the ecosystem while Xbest represents the
highest degree of adaptation. The new solutions are only accepted if they give better fitness value
compared to the previous solutions.

3.2.2.  Commensalism phase

The relationship between spider and trees (or herbs) is the example of commensalism. The spider
makes net on the trees (or herbs) to trap insects. In this way, the spider gets food but the trees or herbs
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

remain unaffected.
In the SOS algorithm, to simulate this commensalism phase, an organism Xj is selected randomly
from the ecosystem which is allowed to interact with the organism Xi. Now, the organism Xi tries to get
benefitted from the interaction while it does not benefit or harm the organism Xj. The new candidate
solution of Xi, generated by the commensal interaction, is given by (14)
( )
Xinew = Xi + rand(−1, 1) × Xbest − Xj (14)
( )
where Xbest − Xj interprets the benefit provided by Xj to help Xi to increase its degree of adaptation so
that it can survive in the ecosystem.

3.2.3.  Parasitism phase

A very common example of parasitic relationship is the relation between plasmodium parasite and the
human being. This parasite enters into human body through anopheles mosquitoes and it reproduces
inside the host human body. As a result, the human host suffers from malaria and may also die.
In parasitism phase of SOS algorithm, an organism Xi is chosen which is similar to the anopheles mos-
quito and it creates an artificial parasite named as Parasite_Vector. This artificial parasite (Parasite_Vector)
is created by duplicating Xi and then, its randomly selected dimensions are modified using a random
number. Now, an organism Xj is selected randomly from the ecosystem which is treated as a host to the
parasite. If the fitness value of Parasite_Vector is better than that of Xj, then it will kill the organism Xj
and take over its position in the ecosystem. On the other hand, if the fitness value of Xj is better, then it
builds immunity against the Parasite_Vector and the parasite will no longer exist in the ecosystem. The
operation of SOS algorithm may be summarised to a pseudo-code presented in Algorithm 1 (Cheng
& Prayogo, 2014). The flowchart of SOS algorithm (Cheng & Prayogo, 2014) is presented in Figure 1.
Algorithm 1: Pseudo-code of SOS algorithm
( )
Define objective function f (x); x = x1 , x2 , … , xd % d is the dimension of the problem
Initialise an ecosystem of n organisms with random solutions
while (t < MaxGeneration)
for i = 1: n   % n is the number of organisms
 Find the best organism Xbest in the ecosystem
 % Mutualism Phase
 Randomly select one organism Xj, where Xj ≠ Xi
Determine mutual relationship vector (Mutual_Vector) and benefit factor (BF)
 Modify organisms Xi and Xj using (11) and (12)
 If modified organisms give better fitness evaluation than previous, then update them in the ecosystem
 % Commensalism Phase
 Randomly select one organism Xj, where Xj ≠ Xi
 Modify organism Xi with the help of Xj using (14)
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   7

Initialize the ecosystem and termination criterion

Identify the best organism

Randomly select one organism X j , where X j ≠ X i

Mutualism phase

Modify organisms X i and X j

based on their mutual relationship

Calculate fitness values of modified organisms

No Are the modified organisms Yes

fitter than previous?
Keep the previous organisms Accept the modified organisms
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Randomly select one organism X j , where X j ≠ X i

Commensalism phase

Modify organism X i with the help of X j and calculate

the fitness value of modified organism

No Is the modified organism Yes

fitter than the previous?
Keep the previous organism Accept the modified organism

Randomly select one organism X j , where X j ≠ X i

Parasitism phase

Create a parasite (Parasite_Vector) from organism X i

No Is Parasite_Vector fitter than X j ? Yes

Keep X j and remove Parasite_Vector Replace X j with

No Is termination criterion fulfilled?

Yes
Optimal solution

Figure 1. Flowchart of SOS algorithm.

Algorithm 1: Pseudo-code of SOS algorithm

 If the modified organism gives better fitness evaluation, then update it in the ecosystem
 % Parasitism Phase
 Randomly select one organism Xj, where Xj ≠ Xi
 Generate Parasite_Vector from organism Xi
 If Parasite_Vector gives better fitness value than Xj, then replace it with Parasite_Vector
end for
 The global best solution is saved as optimal solution
end while
 8    S. Verma et al.

4.  SOS algorithm for CM problem

In the present work, the dimension of the problem is d where d is the number of generators taking
part in CM problem. The inequality constraints are transformed into the penalty functions and these
penalty functions are added to the objective function to construct the fitness function. In this work,
the equality constraints and the reactive power inequality constraints are handled effectively during
Newton–Raphson power flow (Saadat, 2002) while the real power inequality constraints are handled
during the course of iteration. Other inequality constraints (such as load bus voltage and line power flow)
are considered as quadratic penalty functions. The fitness function of CM problem may be described
by (15) (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011)
ovl VB
∑ ∑
Minimise FF = Cc + PF1 × (Pij − Pijmax )2 + PF2 × (ΔVj )2 + PF3 × (ΔPG )2 (15)
i=1 j=1

where
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

{
(Vjmin − Vj ); if Vj ≤ Vjmin
ΔVj = (16)
(Vj − Vjmax ); if Vj ≥ Vjmax

{
(PGmin − PG ); if PG ≤ PGmin
ΔPG = (17)
(PG − PGmax ); if PG ≥ PGmax

Here, FF is the fitness function which is required to be minimised in order to get minimum rescheduling
cost; ovl, VB represent the set of overloaded lines and voltage violated load buses, respectively, and
PFi(i = 1, 2, 3) represent the penalty factor which has been taken as 10,000 throughout the simulation
process (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).

4.1.  Computational procedure of SOS algorithm for CM

Based on the above discussions, the procedure for applying the proposed SOS algorithm for the solution
of CM problem of power system in deregulated environment is given below.
Step 1 Initialisation: Initial ecosystem is generated using the design variables which are the amount
of rescheduling required by the generators to manage congestion (randomly within the
limits).
Step 2 Fitness function evaluation: In the ecosystem, the fitness function is evaluated for each organ-
ism and the best organism is identified.
Step 3 Mutualism phase: The organisms are modified depending on their mutualistic interaction
with other and the fitter organism replaces the weaker one in the ecosystem.
Step 4 Commensalism phase: Commensal interaction is carried out to modify the organisms and
the modified organisms with better fitness values are accepted.
Step 5 Parasitism phase: A parasite vector is generated and it replaces a random organism in the
ecosystem if it gives a better fitness evaluation compared to that random organism.
Step 6 Termination criterion: If maximum number of iteration is reached then the programme is
stopped, otherwise, it goes back to Step 2.

5.  Simulation results and discussion

The optimisation problem, described in the previous sections, is developed and executed in MATLAB
(version 7.6.0) software on an Intel Core i3 Processor-based system with 2.4  GHz clock speed and
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   9

Table 1. Simulated test cases.

Test system Test case Contingency considered

Example 1: modified IEEE 30-bus Case 1A Outage of line 1–2
Case 1B Outage of line 1–7 with increase in load
at all buses by 50%
Case 1C Outage of line 2–3 and increase in load
at buses 2, 3,7 and 8 by 35%
Case 1D Unavailability of line between bus 1 and
7 and increase in load at bus 19 by 130%
Case 1E Outage of line 7–8 and increase in load
at bus 2 by 250%
Case 1F Outage of line 1–2 and load at all buses
raised by 30%

Example 2: Modified IEEE 57-bus Case 2A Reduction in capacity of lines 5–6 and
6–12 from 200 to 175 MW and 50 to
35 MW, respectively
Case 2B Reduction in capacity of line 2–3 from
85 to 20 MW
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Case 2C Outage of line 3–8

Case 2D Outage of line 6–12 and load at all buses
raised by 25%

supported by 4 GB of RAM. The proposed algorithm is tested on modified IEEE 30-bus and 57-bus test
systems to verify the effectiveness of the proposed SOS algorithm for solving CM problem. The bus data
and line data for both the adopted test systems may be found in Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011) and
are presented in Appendix 1. The price bids, offered by the GENCOs to ISOs for modified IEEE 30- and
57-bus test systems, are taken from Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011) and are also presented in Appendix
1. Generation rescheduling costs are calculated for the simulated test cases and are compared to those
reported in Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011) and Balaraman and Kamaraj (2010).
Details of simulated cases carried out on these two test systems are listed in Table 1. Congestion is
created in the lines for the simulation purpose by overloading the lines. In this paper, for contingency
purpose, line overloads are created either by reducing the capacity of lines as to the compared standard
limits or by considering generator or line outage.
The proposed SOS algorithm is executed for 30 independent trial runs, out of which the best solution
set is presented here. It has been found that eco-size (i.e. population size) of 20 is sufficient for solving
the CM problem of the present work. The value of maximum iteration is chosen as 100 for both modified
IEEE 30-bus test system and modified IEEE 57-bus test system. The major observations of present work
are documented below. Results of interest are bold faced in the respective tables.

5.1.  Example 1: modified IEEE 30-bus test system

The modified IEEE 30-bus test system is taken into consideration as Example 1. It is consisted of six
generator buses, 24 load buses and 41 transmission lines. The total real and reactive power of load for
this test system is 283.4 MW and 126.2 MVAR, respectively. Contingencies like unexpected line outage
and increase in system load are considered for simulation purpose. Six different cases are considered
for this example (refer Table 1) in order to compare the performance of the proposed SOS algorithm
with other algorithms like PSO, SA, RSM and RCGA.
In Case 1A (refer Table 1), contingency like outage of the line 1–2 is performed, resulting in over-
loading of lines 1–7 and 7–8. For this case, Newton–Raphson power flow is carried out and the details
of the congested lines are presented in Table 2. The actual power flows in these two lines are 147.463
and 136.292 MW, respectively, against the line flow limit of 130 MW for both the lines. For secure oper-
ation, corrective actions should be taken to alleviate these over loadings of the lines. For this case, the
proposed SOS algorithm is used to solve CM problem. The results obtained by employing the proposed
 10    S. Verma et al.

Table 2. Details of congested lines for modified IEEE 30-bus test system.

Test case Congested lines Line flow before CM (MW) Line flow after CM (MW) Specified limit (MW)
Case 1A 1–7 147.463 130 130
7–8 136.292 120.78 130
Case 1B 1–2 310.917 130 130
2–8 97.353 63.11 65
2–9 103.524 65 65
Case 1C 2–9 81.519 65 65
8–9 93.954 66.46 90
10–3 109.08 65.91 70
9–10 136.912 93.75 130
Case 1D 1–2 155.75 130 130
Case 1E 1–2 196.32 130 130
Case 1F 1–7 264.313 130 130
7–8 232.728 120.061 130
8–9 134.599 78.55 90
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Table 3. Comparison of results obtained from different algorithms for modified IEEE 30-bus test system corresponding to Case 1A
and Case 1B.

Case 1A Case 1B
Parameters SOS (proposed) PSO a
RSM b
SA c
SOS (proposed ) PSOa RSMb SAc
TCC ($/h) 460.827 538.95 716.25 719.861 5303 5335.5 5988 6068.7
ΔPG1 −8.588 −8.612 −8.808 −9.076 −8.587 NR NR NR
ΔPG2 14.581 10.405 2.647 3.133 76.459 NR NR NR
ΔPG3 0 3.034 2.953 3.234 0.0005 NR NR NR
ΔPG4 0 0.017 3.063 2.968 41.083 NR NR NR
ΔPG5 0 0.854 2.913 2.954 30.226 NR NR NR
ΔPG6 0 −0.012 2.952 2.443 11.617 NR NR NR
TGR (MW) 23.169 22.936 23.33 23.809 167.975 168 164.5 164.53
Note: TCC – total congestion cost; TGR – total generation rescheduled; NR – not reported in the referred literature.
a
PSO (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).
b
RSM (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).
c
SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).

SOS algorithm for the solution of CM problem for this test case of Example 1 are tabulated in Table 3 and
those are compared to the results obtained from RSM, SA and PSO techniques reported in Balaraman
and Kamaraj (2011). From Table 3 it is clear that the result obtained by the proposed SOS algorithm
is the best one and it provides minimum rescheduling cost as compared to other methods reported
in the literature, without overloading of the other lines. Comparative congestion cost, offered by SA,
RSM, PSO and the proposed SOS algorithm for this test case, is presented in Figure 2(a). The minimum
rescheduling cost of 460.827 $/h (Table 3 and Figure 2(a)) is obtained by employing the proposed
SOS algorithm. The algorithm converges well within specified maximum number of iteration (shown
in Figure 3(a)). A comparative pictorial representation of real power rescheduling of each generator,
offered by different methods like PSO (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011), RSM (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011)
and SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011), is shown in Figure 4.

In Case 1B (refer Table 1), contingency is created by outage of the line 1–7 along with increase in real
and reactive power of system load by 50% which causes overloading in the lines connected between
buses 1–2, 2–8 and 2–9 (Table 2). The total power violation due to this congestion in the transmission
lines is found to be 251.794 MW. Optimal rescheduling for this case by adopting the proposed SOS
algorithm provides minimum total congestion cost of 5303 $/h which is better than the one reported
in Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011) (Figure 2(b)). The convergence profile of fitness function value against
iterations for this test case, as yielded by the proposed SOS algorithm, is plotted in Figure 3(b).
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   11
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Figure 2. Comparative congestion cost offered by different algorithms for modified IEEE 30-bus test system pertaining to (a) Case
1A, (b) Case 1B, (c) Case 1C, (d) Case 1D, (e) Case 1E and (f) Case 1F.

Pertaining to Case 1C and Case 1D (refer Tables 1 and 2), total power violation of 66.46 and 25.75 MW,
respectively, caused due to outage of the line 2–3 and increase in load at buses 2, 3, 7 and 8 by 35%
are created for Case 1C while unavailability of the line between bus 1 and 7 and increase in load at
bus 19 by 130% are considered for Case 1D. The overload in the lines is elevated by optimal real power
rescheduling by using the proposed SOS algorithm which has helped in relieving the overload com-
pletely (Table 4). It may be noted from Table 4 that the total congestion cost of CM, obtained from the
proposed SOS method, is the lowest one among the costs obtained from the other two methods like SA
(Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010) and RCGA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010) for both the two cases. For these
 12    S. Verma et al.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Figure 3. SOS-based convergence profile of fitness function value for modified IEEE 30-bus test system pertaining to (a) Case 1A, (b)
Case 1B, (c) Case 1C, (d) Case 1D, (e) Case 1E and (f) Case 1F.

two cases, a comparative plot of congestion cost offered by SOS, SA and RCGA is shown in Figure 2(c)
and (d), respectively. The convergence profile of fitness function for test Case 1C and Case 1D, as yielded
by the proposed SOS algorithm, are shown in Figure 3(c) and (d), respectively.
For Case 1E and Case 1F, the considered contingencies are presented in Table 1. Contingencies like
outage of the line 7–8 and increase in load at bus 2 by 250% are considered for Case 1E and outage
of the line 1–2 and load at all buses are raised by 30% for Case 1F. These two contingencies cause net
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   13

Figure 4. Comparative real power rescheduling of generators for modified IEEE 30-bus test system corresponding to Case 1A.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Table 4. Comparison of results obtained from different algorithms for modified IEEE 30-bus test system corresponding to Case 1C
and Case 1D.

Case 1C Case 1D
Parameters SOS (proposed ) RCGAa SAb SOS (proposed ) RCGAa SAb
TCC ($/h) 1832.1 1837.8 1918.8 671 671.614 892.117
ΔPG1 0.0070 6.589 5.287 −8.587 NR NR
ΔPG2 13.835 7.468 4.149 24.595 NR NR
ΔPG3 36.699 35.289 36.479 0 NR NR
ΔPG4 0 0 2.903 0 NR NR
ΔPG5 0 1.251 0 0 NR NR
ΔPG6 0 0 1.375 0 NR NR
TGR (MW) 50.54 50.598 50.250 33.182 33.03 32.59
Note: TCC – total congestion cost; TGR – total generation rescheduled; NR – not reported in the referred literature.
a
RCGA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010).
b
SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010).

Table 5. Comparison of results obtained from different algorithms for modified IEEE 30-bus test system corresponding to Case 1E
and Case 1F.

Case 1E Case 1F
Parameters SOS (proposed ) RCGAa SAb SOS (proposed ) RCGAa SAb
TCC ($/h) 1427.9 1721.9 2076.5 2707.9 2737.2 3672.7
ΔPG1 −6.1853 NR NR −8.5874 NR NR
ΔPG2 62.6908 NR NR 82.4342 NR NR
ΔPG3 0 NR NR 19.4238 NR NR
ΔPG4 0 NR NR 0.0352 NR NR
ΔPG5 0 NR NR 0.0183 NR NR
ΔPG6 0 NR NR 0.0989 NR NR
TGR (MW) 68.87 70.41 68.63 110.597 110.957 112.737
Note: TCC – total congestion cost; TGR – total generation rescheduled; NR – not reported in the referred literature.
a
RCGA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010).
b
SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010).

power violation of 66.32 and 281.637 MW for Case 1E and Case 1F, respectively. Optimal rescheduling
is performed for these two cases also and the obtained results are tabulated in Table 5, which indicates
that minimum congestion cost is achieved while adopting the proposed SOS algorithm as compared
to SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010) and RCGA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2010). A comparative plot of con-
gestion costs for Case 1E and Case 1F (1427.9 and 2707.9 $/h, respectively, for Case 1E and Case 1F)
 14    S. Verma et al.

Table 6. Details of congested lines for modified IEEE 57-bus test system.

Test case Congested lines Line flow before CM (MW) Line flow after CM (MW) Specified limit (MW)
Case 2A 5–6 195.971 175 175
6–12 49.351 35 35
Case 2B 2–3 37.048 20 20
Case 2C 5–6 208.028 199.977 200
6–12 53.263 50 50
Case 2D 2–3 115.940 44.941 85
1–17 114.107 81.195 100

Table 7. Comparison of results obtained from different algorithms for modified IEEE 57-bus test system corresponding to Case 2A
and Case 2B.

Case 2A Case 2B
Parameters SOS (proposed) PSOa RSMb SAc SOS (proposed) PSOa RSMb SAc
TCC ($/h) 5895 6951.9 7967.1 7114.3 2307.1 3117.6 3717.9 4072.9
ΔPG1 70.011 23.13 59.268 74.499 0 NR NR NR
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

ΔPG2 0.0008 12.44 0 0 −28.35 NR NR NR

ΔPG3 0.0003 7.49 37.452 −1.515 28.59 NR NR NR
ΔPG4 0 −5.38 −47.39 9.952 0 NR NR NR
ΔPG5 −44.222 −81.21 −52.12 −85.92 0 NR NR NR
ΔPG6 −27.149 0 0 0 0 NR NR NR
ΔPG7 0.0002 39.03 0 0 0 NR NR NR
TGR (MW) 141.385 168.70 196.23 171.87 56.945 76.314 89.32 97.88
Note: TCC – total congestion cost; TGR – total generation rescheduled; NR – not reported in the referred literature.
a
PSO (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).
b
RSM (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).
c
SA (Balaraman & Kamaraj, 2011).

is presented in Figure 2(e) and (f ), respectively. The convergence graphs of the fitness function offered
by the proposed SOS algorithm for these two cases of Example 1 are shown in Figure 3(e) and (f ), in
order. Line flows for all the considered cases after applying CM are also shown in Table 2.

5.2.  Example 2: modified IEEE 57-bus test system

The modified IEEE 57-bus test system, consists of seven generator buses, fifty load buses and eighty
transmission lines, is considered as Example 2. The total real and reactive power loads on this system
are 1250.8 MW and 336 MVAR, respectively. The details of the four different cases of contingencies, as
considered for this system to simulate congestion, are provided in Table 1.
In Case 2A (refer Table 1), the maximum power transfer limits of the lines 5–6 and 6–12 have been
reduced from 200 to 175 MW and 50 to 35 MW, respectively, to simulate the transmission congestion.
The details of the power flow in these two lines are presented in Table 6. To alleviate this power con-
gestion in the transmission lines, optimum generator rescheduling is performed using the proposed
SOS algorithm. The results obtained by using SOS technique are listed in Table 7 and these are also
compared to the results reported in Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011) by using PSO, RSM and SA. From
Table 7, it is quite clear that SOS algorithm offers minimum congestion cost as compared to other
methods reported and Figure 5(a) portrays the comparative study of the amount of congestion cost
offered by different algorithms. A comparative plot of amount of real power rescheduling required for
CM, as offered by the comparative methods, is presented in Figure 6. It may be noted that the total
system loss before CM was 21.458 MW while it decreases to 19.581 MW after applying SOS method.
The convergence profile of fitness function, as obtained by the proposed SOS, is depicted in Figure 7(a)
for this test case of Example 2.
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   15

Figure 5. Comparative congestion cost offered by different algorithms for modified IEEE 57-bus test system pertaining to (a) Case
2A and (b) Case 2B.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Figure 6. Comparative real power rescheduling of generators for modified IEEE 57-bus test system corresponding to Case 2A.

Figure 7. SOS-based convergence profile of fitness function value for modified IEEE 57-bus test system corresponding to (a) Case
2A and (b) Case 2B.
 16    S. Verma et al.

Table 8. Details of results obtained from SOS algorithm for modified IEEE 57-bus test system corresponding to Case 2C and Case 2D.

Case 2C Case 2D
Parameters SOS (proposed) SOS (proposed)
Total congestion cost ($/h) 953.886 10,677
ΔPG1 0.0081 106.2581
ΔPG2 0.0104 0.0000
ΔPG3 11.7027 73.4797
ΔPG4 −0.0134 −8.4200
ΔPG5 −9.5403 4.6898
ΔPG6 −2.1660 −30.2500
ΔPG7 0.0039 −29.2000
Total generation rescheduled (MW) 23.4448 252.2975
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

Figure 8. SOS-based convergence profile of fitness function value for modified IEEE 57-bus test system corresponding to (a) Case
2C and (b) Case 2D.

In Case 2B (refer Table 1), the line 2–3 is made to be overloaded by reducing its maximum power
flow capacity to 20 MW from an initial value of 85 MW. The line flow details are provided in Table 6. To
relieve the power congestion in the line, the generators are optimally rescheduled according to the
proposed SOS algorithm. The details of results obtained by employing the proposed SOS algorithm and
the comparative algorithms like PSO, RSM and SA are listed in Table 7. It is clear from Table 7 that the
cost incurred for CM for the proposed SOS method is the lowest one among all the costs obtained from
other different methods reported in Balaraman and Kamaraj (2011). The plot of comparative congestion
cost, as obtained by SOS, SA, RSM and PSO methods, is shown in Figure 5(b). The total system loss is
decreased to 21.184 MW after CM while, initially, the same was 21.458 MW. SOS-based convergence
profile of the fitness function is shown in Figure 7(b) for this test case.
In Case 2C (refer Table 1), the line connecting buses 3 and 8 is made out of service. As a result of this,
the lines 5–6 and 6–12 get overloaded as the power flow through these lines exceeds their specified
limits. From Table 6, it may be observed that the power flow through the line 5–6, after considering the
contingency is 208.028 MW while the same for the line 6–12 is found to be as 53.263 MW, as against the
specified power flow limit through these lines of 200 and 50 MW, respectively. So, it can be said that
these lines are moderately congested. To overcome this line congestion, the proposed SOS-based CM
technique is implemented. The details of the results obtained are presented in Table 8. From this table,
it can be noted that the total cost of CM is 953.88 $/h. The convergence profile of the fitness function
is shown in Figure 8(a). The total system loss during congestion period was 21.63 MW whereas it has
decreased to 20.945 MW after, successfully, applying the proposed SOS-based CM technique.
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   17

In Case 2D (refer Table 1), the line 6–12 is simulated to be unavailable and also the active power loads
at all the buses are increased by 25%. Due to this considered contingency, the power flow through
the lines 2–3 and 1–17 becomes 115.940 and 114.107 MW (refer Table 6), respectively, whereas the
specified limits of power flow through these lines are 85 and 100 MW, respectively. This clearly shows
that these two lines are heavily congested. So, the proposed SOS-based CM methodology is adopted
to relieve the power congestion in these two lines. From Table 6, it may be observed that the proposed
method completely alleviate the line congestion as the power flow through previously congested lines
is reduced considerably after applying the proposed SOS-based CM technique. The total cost incurred
to alleviate network congestion in this case is found to be 10,677 $/h. The required amount of up/
down adjustment of active power of the generators is presented in Table 8. Initially, the total loss of the
system was 38.544 MW considering the contingency case but it is considerably reduced to 30.298 MW
after applying the CM technique. SOS-based convergence profile of the fitness function for this case
is shown in Figure 8(b).

6. Conclusion
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

This paper demonstrates a novel technique for CM problem in open access electricity market. SOS
algorithm is, successfully, implemented to minimise the rescheduling cost for alleviating congestion
completely. Contingencies like line outage and sudden load variation are considered in the present
work. In order to verify the likelihood and effectiveness of the proposed SOS algorithm, 10 different test
cases are considered. The obtained results are compared to other optimisation algorithms like PSO, SA,
RSM and RCGA reported in recent literatures. It is observed that the proposed SOS algorithm performs
efficiently for CM of modified IEEE 30- and 57-bus systems. SOS algorithm has added advantage of
less evaluation function and no requirement of tuning parameters. Thus, it provides a new effective
approach to solve the CM problem of power system in deregulated regime. Numerical experimentation
outcomes also reveal that the proposed SOS algorithm may get higher eminence solutions with faster
convergence speed and stronger local search ability for some other engineering applications by the
future researches.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Alomoush, M. I., & Shahidehpour, S. M. (2000). Contingency-constrained congestion management with a minimum number
of adjustments in preferred schedules. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 22, 277–290.
Balaraman, S., & Kamaraj, N. (2010). Congestion management in deregulated power system using real coded genetic
algorithm. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology, 2, 6681–6690.
Balaraman, S., & Kamaraj, N. (2011). Transmission congestion management using particle swarm optimization. Journal of
Electrical Systems, 7, 54–70.
Bompard, E., Correia, P., Gross, G., & Amelin, M. (2003). Congestion-management schemes: A comparative analysis under
a unified framework. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18, 346–352.
Cheng, M. Y., & Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic organisms search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers
& Structures, 139, 98–112.
Christie, R. D., Wollenberg, B. F., & Wangensteen, I. (2000). Transmission management in the deregulated environment.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 88, 170–195.
Gupta, N., Shekhar, R., & Kalra, P. K. (2014). Computationally efficient composite transmission expansion planning: A pareto
optimal approach for techno-economic solution. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 63, 917–926.
Jang, J. S. R., Sun, C. T., & Mizutani, E. (1996). Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing: A computational approach to learning and
machine intelligence. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.
Jian, F., & Lamont, J. W. (2001). A combined framework for service identification and congestion management. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 16, 56–61.
 18    S. Verma et al.

Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B. (2007). A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: Artificial bee
colony (ABC) algorithm. Journal of Global Optimization, 39, 459–471.
Kothari, D. P., & Dhillon, J. S. (2011). Power system optimization. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
Kumar, A., & Mittapalli, R. K. (2014). Congestion management with generic load model in hybrid electricity markets with
FACTS devices. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 57, 49–63.
Kumar, A., & Sekhar, C. (2013). Congestion management with FACTS devices in deregulated electricity markets ensuring
loadability limit. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 46, 258–273.
Lai, L. L. (2001). Power system restructuring and deregulation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Saadat, H. (2002). Power system analysis. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
Talukdar, B. K., Sinha, A. K., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bose, A. (2005). A computationally simple method for cost-efficient
generation rescheduling and load shedding for congestion management. International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 27, 379–388.
Yamina, H. Y., & Shahidehpour, S. M. (2003). Congestion management coordination in the deregulated power market.
Electric Power Systems Research, 65, 119–127.
Yang, X. S. (2010a). Engineering optimization. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley.
Yang, X. S. (2010b). Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. International Journal of Bio-Inspired
Computation, 2, 78–84.
Yang, X. S. (2011). Bat algorithm for multi-objective optimisation. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, 3,
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

267–274.
Yang, X. S., Karamanoglu, M., & He, X. S. (2014). Flower pollination algorithm: A novel approach for multiobjective
optimization. Engineering Optimization, 46, 1222–1237.
Zhuang, F., & Galiana, F. D. (1990). Unit commitment by simulated annealing. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 5, 311–318.

Appendix 1. Bus data and line data for modified IEEE 30-bus system are presented in Tables A1 and A2, respectively, while
those for modified IEEE 57-bus system are given in Tables A3 and A4, respectively. Price bids submitted by GENCOs for
modified IEEE 30- and 57-bus system are given by Tables A5 and A6, respectively.

Table A1. Bus data for modified IEEE 30-bus test system.
Generation Load Generation
Voltage
Bus no. Bus code (V) Angle (°) MW MVAR MW MVAR Qmin Qmax
1 1 1.06 0.0 138.59 0.0 0.0 0.0 −30 100
2 2 1.043 0.0 57.56 50.0 21.7 12.7 −30 100
3 2 1.01 0.0 24.56 37.0 94.2 19.0 −30 100
4 2 1.01 0.0 35.0 37.3 30.0 30.0 −30 100
5 2 1.082 0.0 17.91 16.2 0.0 0.0 −30 100
6 2 1.071 0.0 16.93 10.6 0.0 0.0 −30 100
7 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0
8 0 1.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
9 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 10.9 0.0 0.0
11 0 1.802 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.0 0.0 0.0
13 0 1.071 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 7.5 0.0 0.0
14 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0
15 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 2.5 0.0 0.0
16 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.8 0.0 0.0
17 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 5.8 0.0 0.0
18 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.9 0.0 0.0
19 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 3.4 0.0 0.0
20 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.0
21 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 11.2 0.0 0.0
22 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0
24 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 6.7 0.0 0.0
25 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.3 0.0 0.0
27 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
29 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.0 0.0
30 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 1.9 0.0 0.0
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   19

Table A2. Line data for modified IEEE 30-bus test system.
Line Line
Start End B/2 limit Start End B/2 limit
bus bus R (p.u.) X (p.u.) (p.u.) (MW) bus bus R (p.u.) X (p.u.) (p.u.) (MW)
1 2 0.0192 0.0575 0.0264 130 15 18 0.1073 0.2185 0.0 16
1 7 0.0452 0.1652 0.0204 130 18 19 0.0639 0.1292 0.0 16
2 8 0.0570 0.1737 0.0184 65 19 20 0.0340 0.0680 0.0 32
7 8 0.0132 0.0379 0.0042 130 12 20 0.0936 0.2090 0.0 32
2 3 0.0472 0.1983 0.0209 130 12 17 0.0324 0.0845 0.0 32
2 9 0.0581 0.1763 0.0187 65 12 21 0.0348 0.0749 0.0 32
8 9 0.0119 0.0414 0.0045 90 12 22 0.0727 0.1499 0.0 32
3 10 0.0460 0.1160 0.0102 70 21 22 0.0116 0.0236 0.0 32
9 10 0.0267 0.0820 0.0085 130 15 23 0.1000 0.2020 0.0 16
9 4 0.0120 0.0420 0.0045 32 22 24 0.1150 0.1790 0.0 16
9 11 0.0 0.2080 0.0 65 23 24 0.1320 0.2700 0.0 16
9 12 0.0 0.5560 0.0 32 24 25 0.1885 0.3292 0.0 16
11 5 0.0 0.2080 0.0 65 25 26 0.2544 0.3800 0.0 16
11 12 0.0 0.1100 0.0 65 25 27 0.1093 0.2087 0.0 16
8 13 0.0 0.2560 0.0 65 28 27 0.0 0.3960 0.0 65
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

13 6 0.0 0.1400 0.0 65 27 29 0.2198 0.4153 0.0 16

13 14 0.1231 0.2559 0.0 32 27 30 0.3202 0.6027 0.0 16
13 15 0.0662 0.1304 0.0 32 29 30 0.2399 0.4533 0.0 16
13 16 0.0945 0.1987 0.0 32 4 28 0.0636 0.2000 0.0214 32
14 15 0.2210 0.1997 0.0 16 9 28 0.0169 0.0599 0.065 32
16 17 0.0824 0.1923 0.0 16

Table A3. Bus data for modified IEEE 57-bus test system.

Generation Load Generation

Voltage
Bus no. Bus code (V) Angle (°) MW MVAR MW MVAR Qmin Qmax
1 1 1.04 0.0 146.39 0.0 55.0 17.0 −140 200.0
2 2 1.01 0.0 87.55 0.0 3.0 88.0 −40 50.0
3 2 0.99 0.0 41.97 0.0 41.0 21.0 −40 60.0
4 2 0.98 0.0 89.67 0.0 75.0 2.0 −30 25
5 2 1.01 0.0 461.21 0.0 150.0 22.0 −140 200
6 2 0.98 0.0 100.0 0.0 121.0 26.0 −30 9
7 2 1.02 0.0 344.95 0.0 377.0 24.0 −150 155
8 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
10 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
12 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 2.3 0.0 0.0
14 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 5.3 0.0 0.0
15 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
16 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
17 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
18 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.2 9.8 0.0 0.0
19 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.6 0.0 0.0
20 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0
21 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 2.1 0.0 0.0
24 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.2 0.0 0.0
26 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
27 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.5 0.0 0.0
28 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0
29 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 2.6 0.0 0.0
30 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0
31 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.9 0.0 0.0
32 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0
33 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.0
34 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(Continued)
 20    S. Verma et al.

Table A3. (Continued).

Generation Load Generation
Voltage
Bus no. Bus code (V) Angle (°) MW MVAR MW MVAR Qmin Qmax
35 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
36 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
37 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
38 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
39 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
40 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
41 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.0 0.0 0.0
42 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 4.0 0.0 0.0
43 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
44 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
45 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
46 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
47 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 11.6 0.0 0.0
48 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
49 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.5 0.0 0.0
50 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 10.5 0.0 0.0
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

51 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 5.3 0.0 0.0

52 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 2.2 0.0 0.0
53 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
54 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.4 0.0 0.0
55 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 3.4 0.0 0.0
56 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 2.2 0.0 0.0
57 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 2.0 0.0 0.0

Table A4. Line data for modified IEEE 57-bus test system.
Line Line
Start End B/2 limit Start End B/2 limit
bus bus R (p.u) X (p.u) (p.u) (MW) bus bus R (p.u) X (p.u) (p.u) (MW)
1 2 0.0083 0.0280 0.0645 150 10 29 0.0 0.0648 0.0 100
2 3 0.0298 0.0850 0.0409 85 25 30 0.1350 0.2020 0.0 100
3 8 0.0112 0.0366 0.0190 100 30 31 0.3260 0.4970 0.0 100
8 9 0.0625 0.132 0.0129 100 31 32 0.5070 0.7550 0.0 100
8 4 0.0430 0.148 0.0174 50 32 33 0.0392 0.0360 0.0 100
4 10 0.0200 0.102 0.0138 40 34 32 0.0 0.9530 0.0 100
4 5 0.0339 0.173 0.0235 100 34 35 0.0520 0.0780 0.0016 100
5 6 0.0099 0.050 0.0274 200 35 36 0.0430 0.0537 0.0008 100
6 11 0.0369 0.167 0.0220 50 36 37 0.0290 0.0366 0.0 100
6 12 0.0258 0.0848 0.0109 50 37 38 0.0300 0.1009 0.0010 100
6 7 0.0648 0.0295 0.0386 50 37 39 0.0192 0.0379 0.0 100
6 13 0.0481 0.158 0.0203 50 36 40 0.0 0.0466 0.0 100
13 14 0.0132 0.0434 0.0055 50 22 38 0.2070 0.0295 0.0 100
13 15 0.0269 0.0869 0.0115 100 12 41 0.0 0.7490 0.0 100
1 15 0.0178 0.0910 0.0494 200 41 42 0.0289 0.3520 0.0 100
1 16 0.0454 0.2060 0.0273 100 41 43 0.0 0.4120 0.0 100
1 17 0.0238 0.1080 0.0143 100 38 44 0.0 0.0585 0.0010 100
3 15 0.0162 0.0530 0.0272 100 15 45 0.0230 0.1042 0.0 100
8 18 0.0 0.5550 0.0 100 14 46 0.0182 0.0735 0.0 100
8 18 0.0 0.4300 0.0 100 46 47 0.0834 0.0680 0.0016 100
9 4 0.0302 0.0641 0.0062 100 47 48 0.0801 0.0233 0.0 100
10 5 0.0139 0.0712 0.0097 100 48 49 0.1386 0.1290 0.0024 100
11 7 0.0277 0.1262 0.0164 100 49 50 0.0 0.1280 0.0 100
12 13 0.0223 0.0732 0.0094 100 50 51 0.0 0.2200 0.0 100
7 13 0.0178 0.0580 0.0302 100 11 51 0.1442 0.0712 0.0 100
7 16 0.0180 0.0813 0.0108 100 13 49 0.0762 0.1910 0.0 100
7 17 0.0397 0.1790 0.0238 100 29 52 0.1878 0.1870 0.0 100
14 15 0.0171 0.0547 0.0074 100 52 53 0.1732 0.0984 0.0 100
18 19 0.4610 0.6850 0.0 100 53 54 0.0 0.2320 0.0 100
19 20 0.2830 0.4340 0.0 100 54 55 0.0624 0.2265 0.0 100
21 20 0.0 0.7767 0.0 100 12 43 0.0 0.1530 0.0 100
21 22 0.0736 0.1170 0.0 100 44 45 0.5530 0.1242 0.0020 100
(Continued)
 Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence   21

Table A4. (Continued).

Line Line
Start End B/2 limit Start End B/2 limit
bus bus R (p.u) X (p.u) (p.u) (MW) bus bus R (p.u) X (p.u) (p.u) (MW)
22 23 0.0099 0.0152 0.0 100 40 56 0.2125 1.1950 0.0 100
23 24 0.1660 0.2560 0.0042 100 56 41 0.0 0.5490 0.0 100
24 25 0.0 1.1820 0.0 100 56 42 0.1740 0.3540 0.0 100
24 25 0.0 1.23 0.0 100 39 57 0.1150 1.3550 0.0 100
24 26 0.0 0.0473 0.0 100 57 56 0.0312 0.2600 0.0 100
26 27 0.1650 0.2540 0.0 100 38 49 0.0 0.1770 0.003 100
27 28 0.0618 0.0954 0.0 100 38 48 0.0 0.0482 0.0 100
28 29 0.0418 0.0587 0.0 100 6 55 0.0 0.1205 0.0 100

Table A5. Price bids submitted by GENCOs for modified IEEE 30-bus test system.
Bus number Increment ($/MWh) Decrement ($/MWh)
1 22 18
2 21 19
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:35 10 January 2016

3 42 38
4 43 37
5 43 35
6 41 39

Table A6. Price bids submitted by GENCOs for modified IEEE 57-bus test system.
Bus number Increment ($/MWh) Decrement ($/MWh)
1 44 41
2 43 39
3 42 38
4 43 37
5 42 39
6 44 40
7 44 41