Proceedings of the 14th International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON10), Cairo University, Egypt, December 19-21,

2010, Paper ID 293.

Transmission Loss Minimization and UPFC Installation Cost using Evolutionary Computation for Improvement of Voltage Stability
Nor Rul Hasma Abdullah
Faculty of Electrical & Electronics Engineering Universiti Malaysia Pahang Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia norrul78@yahoo.com Abstract - A critical factor effecting power transmission systems today is power flow control. The increment of load variation in a power transmission system can lead to potential failure on the entire system as the system has to work under a stressed condition. Thus, the Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) are integrated in power system to control the power flow in specific lines and improve the security of transmission line. This paper presents Evolutionary Programming (EP) techniques for solving reactive power problem incorporating Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC). The objective of the study is to employ EP optimization technique for loss minimization along with installation cost calculation and voltage profile monitoring. The optimizations are made based on two parameters: the location of the devices and it sizes. The UPFC devices are installed in the system in order to enhance the system security; performed on the IEEE 30-bus RTS for several loading conditions. The simulations results are compared with those obtained from the Artificial Immune System (AIS) technique in the attempt to highlight its merit.
Index Terms - UPFC; Loss Minimization; Evolutionary Programming; Artificial Immune System; Installation Cost.

Ismail Musirin and Muhammad Murtadha Othman

Faculty of Electrical Engineering Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia i_musirin@yahoo.co.uk & mamat505my@yahoo.com supply using the existing transmission lines. There are few other methods available in solving the problems. In couple of years, the electromechanical equipments were used. Those equipments were switched inductors or capacitors banks and phase-shifting transformer. However all this equipments are not reliable or not efficient enough due to the certain problems related to this equipments. They are not only relatively slow but they also cannot be switched frequently because they tend to wear out quickly [1]. In this context, one possible solution to improve the system operation was the use of Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) technologies. It opens up new opportunities for controlling the power, decreasing the losses and enhancing the unstable capacity of existing transmission lines [1]. However not all can be provided by FACTS devices and it is important to select the type of devices in order to achieve the purpose. FACTS devices are solid state converters that have the ability to control various electrical parameters in transmission networks. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is one of the suitable approaches to be chosen according to the purpose. UPFC can effectively control both the active and reactive flows on the lines and voltage magnitudes at the buses. In addition, UPFC can independently provide either positive or negative reactive power injections. The application of UPFC as the main instrument to improve voltage profile has also been addressed in various researches [7, 9, 11]. Some optimization techniques have been applied for the optimal placement of multi-type FACTS devices such as Genetic Algorithms (GAs), Tabu Search (TS) and Simulated Annealing (SA) [4-5]. An evolutionary programming approach to determine the optimal allocation of multi-type FACTS devices [6-7], a Genetic Algorithm technique which proposed for solving the optimal location of FACTS [8, 9] and a particle swarm technique for optimal location of FACTS devices[10-11]. Preedavichit and Srivastava [12] proposed a loss sensitivity approach for placement of series capacitors, phase shifters and static VAR compensators. In this study, EP technique was used as one of the optimization technique. By using EP technique to optimize the size of UPFCs, the loss can be minimized and voltage profile can be improved. Therefore the recovered supply can be used to support the increasing electrical energy demand in

I.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the power transmission systems have been changed a lot. The voltage deviation due to load variation and power transfer limitation were observed due to reactive power unbalances has drawn attention to better utilize the existing transmission line. It also causes a higher impact on power system security and reliability in the world. Hence, the electrical energy demand increases continuously from time to time. This increase should be monitored or observed because few problems could appear with the power flows through the existing electric transmission networks. If this situation fails to be controlled, some lines located on the particular paths might become overloaded [1]. Due to the overloaded conditions the transmission lines will have to be driven close to or even beyond their transfer capacities. Building a new transmission line will not be an efficient way to solve the problems since it is quite complicated and due to the environmental and political reasons [2]. Therefore the only way to overcome this major problem is by developing a new way of transmitting more efficient and economical

825

the system. EP is optimization technique implemented in solving power optimization problems. This method has been thoroughly discussed since its introduction by Fogel in 1960 [13]. It has also been successfully applied to various areas of power systems to solve the optimization problem related to unit commitment [14], optimal reactive power dispatch [14] and reactive power planning [15-16]. Another technique which can address optimization technique is Artificial Immune System (AIS). This paper presents the application of EC to minimize losses and improve voltage profile in power system along with calculation of installation cost. The technique determines the location of UPFC installation based on voltage stability index as the fitness and their optimal sizing. The EP and AIS methods performed on the IEEE 30-bus reliability test system have indicated that the proposed methods are worth in loss minimization scheme. II.
PROBLEM FORMULATION

Z ij = Z L + jX TCSC , X TCSC = rTCSC . X L

(1)

where ZL is the impedance of the transmission line, XTCSC is the reactance of the line where TCSC is located and rTCSC is the coefficient which represents the compensation degree of TCSC.

Fig. 2 Block diagram of the considered TCSC devices.

Flexible AC transmission system (FACTS) devices have several types namely, Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC), Static VAR Compensator (SVC), static compensator (STATCOM), Thyristor Controlled Phase Angle Regulator (TCPAR) and Thyristor Controlled Static Compensator (TCSC). The optimization of SVCs for solving reactive power control problem involve several equation and constraint; equality constraint and inequality constraint. The equality constraints are the nodal power balance equations, while the inequality constraints are the limits of all control or state variables. The objective function is optimization of real power losses in the power system. A. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) design UPFC mode is illustrated in Fig. 1. It consists of two voltage-source converters, which is connected back to back through a DC capacitor.

The SVC can be operated as both inductive and capacitive compensation which can control bus voltage by absorbing or injecting reactive power [10]. The SVC is modelled as a shunt variable susceptance added at both ends of the line. Hence, it is modelled as ideal reactive power injections to perform the steady-state condition at bus i, as shown in Fig. 3 [17].

Fig. 3 Block diagram of the considered SVC devices.

The injected power at bus i is

Qis = Qsvc .

(2)

where QSVC is the reactive power injected by the SVC placed bus in MVAR. Hence, the UPFC device constraint limit is given by [18],

0.8 X L X TCSC 0.2 X L

(3) (4)

200MVAR QSVC 200 MVAR

Fig. 1 UPFC model.

In this study, the UPFC is modelled by the simultaneous presence of several FACTS devices in the same power transmission line [18]. A TCSC in the line and SVC at a bus in an adjacent branch incorporated as an UPFC in this paper. The mathematical models of TCSC, is shown in Fig. 2. TCSC can be operated as the inductive or capacitive compensation by decreasing or increasing the reactance of the transmission line branch. Its value is function of the reactance of the line XL where the TCSC is located [17].

B. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) placement The placement of the UPFCs in the network must be determined and then, the setting of the control parameters of UPFC is optimized by controlling the device parameters. Locations of FACTS devices in the power system are obtained based on the performance using the voltage stability index measured each line for the same operating conditions. UPFCs are installed in the weakest buses and heavily loaded areas to reduce stressed condition in the system. The Static Voltage Stability Index (SVSI) technique was applied as the tool to indicate the UPFCs location into the network. When the load flow program was run, stability indices are calculated for UPFC placed in every line one at a time for the same operating conditions and the system identified five line buses with the highest SVSI for the purpose of installing the UPFC. The EP optimization technique is then used to determine the

826

suitable value of the UPFC. The concept of the SVSI is demonstrated through a simple two-bus system model. The mathematical formulation for SVSI [1] is given as in equation (5);

1) Initialization: An initial population of xi parent individual is selected randomly within their feasible range as denote below:

SVSI ji =

(X
2

2 ji

+R

2 ji

)(P

2 ji

+Q

2 ji

xim = [ xTCSC( y ) i , xTCSC( y ) i , xTCSC( y ) i , xTCSC ( y ) i ,

1 2 3 4

(5)

Vi 2 X jiQ ji 2 R ji Pji

xTCSC( y ) i , Qsvc( y ) i , Qsvc( y ) i , Qsvc( y ) i , Qsvc ( y ) i , Qsvc( y ) i ]

5 1 2 3 4 5

(9)

where, i is the sending bus, j is the receiving bus, Rji is the line resistance Xji is the line reactance, Pji is the real power at the receiving end, Qji is the reactive power at the receiving end and Vi the sending end voltage. SVSI has a value between 0 and 1, in which 0 represents the no-load condition and 1 represents unstable condition. Therefore, to obtain stability in the system, SVSI has to be maintained far below 1. C. Cost of Installation The cost of installation of UPFC devices has been mathematically formulated and is given by [2]

where i= 1,2,3,4,m. The variable, m indicated the population size from a set of random distributions ranging from
min max min max xTCSC to xTCSC and Qsvc to Qsvc . It represents the

IC = CUPFC S 1000 .

(6)

where IC is the installation cost of UPFC devices in US$ and CUPFC is the cost of UPFC devices in US$/KVAR. Installation cost includes the sum of installation cost of all the devices and it can be calculated using the cost function given by [2]:
CUPFC = 0.0003 S 2 0.2691S + 188 .22 (US $ / KVAR )

compensation degree of UPFC. The variables y1 until y5 indicated the five bus at the sensitive line. The initial parent should verify the constraints which is the fitness function of the system. 2) Mutation: During mutation, the Gaussian mutation operator is performed to generate new population (offspring) to the selected individual (parents), xi,j randomly by using a standard deviation, which is the square root of the variance. The standard deviation decides the features of offspring produced related to its parent. Each element of the offspring individual is calculated according to the following equation:

xi +m, j = xi , j + N 0, i2, j ,

i , j = (x j max x j min )
where

fi f max

(10)

(7) (8)

S = Q2 Q1

where, S is operating range of UPFC in MVAR, Q1 is reactive power flow through the branch before UPFC installation and Q2 is reactive power flow through the branch after UPFC installation. III.
EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMMING

In this study EP is used as the main optimization technique to solve the reactive power dispatch problem; which involves initialization, fitness computation, mutation, combination, tournament selection and transcription of next generation. The process for the optimal solution is started by determining a population of candidate solution over a number of generations randomly. The strength of each of candidate solution is determined by its fitness function which is evaluated based on the constraint in the objective function of the minimization respectively. The individuals that survived according to fitness function referred to as the objective function. If the individuals pursue the fitness setting range during the initialization, the fittest individuals will survive to the next generation, while others will be combined through a process of mutation to create new populations. Finally, the new population is evaluated and the process is repeated. The procedure of the proposed method is summarized as follows:

xi+m = mutated parent (offsprings) xi,j = parent N ( , 2 ) = Gaussian random variable with mean and variance 2 = mutation scale. 0< <1 xj max=maximum random number for every variable xj min =minimum random number for every variable fi= fitness for the ith random number fmax= maximum fitness The mutation scale, can be manually adjusted to achieve better convergence. The lower value of , convergence of EP is expected to occur more quickly and vice versa. 3) Tournament Selection: EP employs a selection through the tournament scheme as to choose the survivals to the next generation. This selection is used to identify the candidates that can be transcribed into the next generation from the combined population of the parents and offspring. In this tournament, an individual is randomly selected from the set of parents and offsprings population. The populations of individuals with better fitness function were sorted in ascending order. The first half or the population would be retained as a new individuals or parent to the next generation and the others will be removed from the pools. The process is continued until a convergence is reached. 4) Convergence Criterion: The convergence criterion is based on the difference between the maximum and minimum

827

fitness of the objective function. The optimal solution is achieved when there is no significant changed between the new generation and the last generation. If fitnessmax and fitnessmin represent the maximum and minimum values of the objective functions inside a given parent generation, the convergence criterion process will be achieved if: fitnessmax fitnessmin 0.0001 (11)

size of UPFCs to be installed and transferred into the load flow programme for evaluating the total losses. Tests are performed at several loading conditions. Several inequality constraints are set in this study so as to achieve the optimal solution. V. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The proposed method has been tested on a IEEE 30-bus RTS system, which consist of 5 voltage control buses, 24 load buses, 1 slack bus, 41 interconnected lines and 4 transformer tap changers. The base power is 100MVA. There were two constraints assigned before the UPFCs sizing is optimized. The constraints were total loss to be less than the loss_set and voltage at the loaded bus higher than V_set. The loss_set and V_set are the total loss and voltage at the loaded bus before the optimization process was conducted. Result for losses minimization and voltage profile improvement at bus 26 is tabulated in Table I. From the table, bus 26 was subjected to variation of loading conditions. Loading factor, is increased gradually in order to observe the effect of total losses with the installation of UPFCs to the system.
29

START

Find the 5 sensitive line and assign x to UPFC parameter

Set the loading factor Calculate fitness by running load flow programme to evaluate total loss Determine the maximum, minimum, average and summation of fitness Mutate the parents (Generate offsprings) Recalculate fitness by running load flow programme to evaluate total loss Combine parent and offsprings Perform selection by ranking process

Run load flow

Calculate index Sort index in descending order Display 5 highest index (Sensitive Line) Find Qline before UPFCs installation Set the UPFCs constraints Generate random no,x as a control variable of UPFC (x1,x2,...xn) n= no. of UPFCs installation

Total Losses at bus 26 (MW)

27 25 23 21 19 17

2.5

at bus 26 (p.u)

3.2

Transcribe new generations Constraint violation? Yes No Fill in population pool Yes Polulation pool is full? Yes Determine xi min and x i max END No
Voltage at bus 26 (p.u)

Total Losses before installation of UPFC Total Losses after optimised with EP Total Losses after optimised with AIS

Fig 5. Transmission loss profiles using EP and AIS with bus 26 loaded
Solution converge?
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 2 2.5 3 3.2
a

Find Qline after UPFCs installation Calculate cost of installations

Fig. 4 Flowchart of EP for UPFC Implementation

at bus 26 (p.u)

IV. METHODOLOGY The Evolutionary Programming (EP) optimization technique was implemented in the following procedures as shown in Fig. 4. Ten initial variables i.e. x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8 , x9 and x10 are generated randomly. These values will be the

Voltage before installation of UPFC Voltage after optimised with EP Voltage after optimised with AIS

Fig 6.

Voltage profiles for bus 26 loaded

828

TABLE I EFFECT OF UPFC INSTALLATION FOR LOSS MINIMIZATION AND COST INSTALLATION AT BUS 26 factor (p.u.) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.2 Analysis Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC SVSI (p.u.) 0.3197 0.395 0.3636 0.2974 0.538 0.3965 0.6431 0.431 Total Loss (MW) 20.3 18.3 22.3 18.7 26.2 19.1 28.9 19.5 % Loss 9.6 16.1 27.2 32.7 Vm (p.u.) 0.845 1.115 0.783 1.013 0.688 1.153 0.636 1.080 Cost (US$) 10,764.80 11,762.92 21,223.23 28,559.57

TABLE II LOCATION AND SIZE OF UPFC WHEN BUS 26 WAS REACTIVELY LOADED factor (p.u.) 2.0 Analysis Line No Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC 2.5 Line No Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Line No Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Line No Pre-UPFC Post-UPFC Vm (p.u.) 0.845 1.115 0.783 1.013 0.688 1.153 0.636 1.080 X1 5 0.20 0.17 34 0.38 -0.22 34 0.38 -0.21 15 0.38 -0.22 X2 2 0.19 -0.23 5 0.20 0.19 5 0.20 -0.28 5 0.20 0.07 X3 Per Unit 15 0.26 -0.53 2 0.19 -0.07 2 0.19 -0.37 2 0.19 -0.04 X4 34 0.38 -0.67 15 0.26 -0.69 15 0.26 -0.54 12 0.26 0.04 X5 6 0.18 -0.65 6 0.18 -0.29 6 0.18 -0.43 6 0.40 -0.10 Q1 5 0 -92.49 34 0 -22.22 34 0 -42.79 15 0 -44.43 Q2 2 0 -26.45 5 0 -10.22 5 0 -21.25 5 0 173.81 Q3 MVAr 15 0 -41.64 2 0 17.95 2 0 -9.64 2 0 42.08 Q4 34 0 -29.90 15 0 33.98 15 0 -44.87 12 0 -55.41 Q5 6 0 45.73 6 0 -140.71 6 0 -88.28 6 0 15.65

3.0

3.2

.TABLE III COMPARISON RESULTS FOR UPFC BETWEEN EP AND AIS WHEN BUS 26 WAS REACTIVELY LOADED factor (p.u.) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.2 Pre UPFC Voltage 0.8445 0.7831 0.6878 0.6358 Loss 20.3 22.3 26.2 28.9 Voltage 1.1148 1.0133 1.1528 1.0797 Loss 18.3 18.7 19.1 19.5 Post UPFC EP %Loss 9.6 16.1 27.2 32.7 Cost $10,764.80 $11,762.92 $21,223.23 $28,559.42 Voltage 1.1876 1.0261 1.3877 1.2584 Loss 20.2 22.2 25.9 28.4 AIS %Loss 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.7 Cost $11,913.93 $39,406.71 $19,413.65 $28,559.57

The loading factor, was increased up to 3.2 p.u.. The five location of UPFCs installation in the network are also identified by using SVSI technique and shown in the Table II. Different loading condition shows a different location for UPFCs placement in the system as it depends on which line are the weakest subjected to loading factor variation. The application for minimization of losses as the objective function using EP has significantly reduced the losses and increased the voltage profile value at the loaded bus; hence improving the voltage stability in a system. It is observed that the total losses value decreased accordingly and the voltage profiles for post-UPFC are higher with the increment in the loading factor. This implies that with the implementation of UPFC optimization, voltage has been improved, while total losses have been reduced indicating voltage stability improvement.

For instance, at loading condition of 3.2 p.u. the losses have been reduced from 28.9 MW to 19.5 MW with the reduction of 32.7%. In order to achieve this reduction, the values of UPFCs are -0.22 p.u. and -44.43 MVAR, 0.07 p.u. and 173.81, -0.04 p.u. and 42.08 MVAR, 0.04 p.u. and -55.41 MVAR, -0.10 p.u. and 15.65 MVAR which should be installed at line number 15, 5, 2, 12 and 6 respectively. Comparative study was performed by implementing similar scheme using AIS. The comparisons are made in terms of total loss minimization, voltage profile and installation cost. Table III tabulates the results of comparative studies using EP and AIS. From Table III and Fig. 5, it is observed that when EP was used to optimize the size of UPFC, it gives better results as compared to AIS in terms of total losses. However, as shown in Fig. 6, it is observed that when AIS was used to optimize the size of UPFC, it outperformed EP in term of

829

voltage profile enhancement. At loading factor, = 3.2 p.u., AIS methods has improved the voltage profile from 0.6358.u. to 1.2584p.u. as compared to EP which can only manage to increase the voltage up to 1.0797 p.u.. As for the installation cost, at loading factor equal to 2.5 p.u., an installation cost of five UPFCs devices equal to $11,762.92 is obtained by EP technique, while for the same number of UPFCs devices the installation cost obtained by AIS technique is $39,406.71which is higher whereas the reduction of total losses is lower than EP. VI. CONCLUSION This paper has presented the application of evolutionary computation technique for loss minimization and UPFC installation cost. In this study, EP and AIS methods are applied at bus 26 for the minimization of real power loss as the objective function. Simulation is carried out on the IEEE 30-bus RTS system. Both the EP and AIS techniques performed well in most cases. Simulation results demonstrated that the proposed EP technique is feasible for loss minimization scheme in other power system network. For future work, other FACTS devices such as TCSC, SVC and TCPAR can be incorporated together to achieve similar task. VII. REFERENCES
A. Kazemi, S. Jamali, M. Habibi and S. Ramezan-Jamaat; Optimal Location of TCSCs in a Power System by Means of Genetic Algorithms Considering Loss Reduction, First International Power and Energy Conference PECon 2006, November 2006, pp. 134-139. [2] G. Glanzmann, G. Andersson, Using FACTS Devices to Resolve Congestions in Transmission Grids, CIGRE/IEEE PES, 2005, International Symposium, Oct. 2005, pp. 347 354. [3] Y. Lue and A. Abur, Improving System Static Security via Optimal Placement of Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitors (TCSC), IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Vol. 2 , pp. 516-521, 2001. [4] T.S. Chung, Y.Z. Li, A Hybrid GA Approach for OPF with Consideration of FACTS Devices, IEEE Power Eng. Rev., Vol. 10, Issue 8, 2001, p.p. 4750. [5] P. Bhasaputra,W. Ongsakul, Optimal Power Flow with Multi-Type of FACTS Devices by Hybrid TS/SA Approach, IEEE Proceedings on International Conference on Industrial Technology, Vol. 1, December 2002, pp. 285290. [6] W. Ongskul, P. Jirapong, Optimal allocation of FACTS Devices to Enhance Total Transfer Capability using Evolutionary Programming, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 5, pp.4175-4178, May. 2005. [7] K. P. Wang, J. Yurevich and A. Li, Evolutionary programming- Based Load Flow Algorithm for Systems Containing Unified Power Flow Controllers, IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm .Distrib, Vol. 150, No. 4, Jul. 2003, pp. 441-446. [8] L. Ippolito and P. Siano, Selection of Optimal Number and Location of Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifters using Genetic Based Algorithms, IEE proc.-Gener. Trasm. Distrib. Vol. 151, No. 5, Sept. 2004, pp. 630637. [9] D. Radu and Y. Besanger, A Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm Approach to Optimal Allocation of Multi-Type FACTS Devices for Power System Security, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Jun. 2006. [10] M. Saravanan, S.M.R. Slochanal, P. Venkatesh, and P.S. Abraham, Application of PSO Technique for Optimal Location of FACTS [1]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

Devices Considering System Loadability and Cost of Installation, Power Engineering Conference, Vol. 21, 2005, pp.716 -721. H. I. Shaheen, G. I. Rashed, and S. J. Cheng, Optimal Location and Parameters Setting of Unified Power Flow Controller Based on Evolutionary Optimization Techniques, IEEE PES 2007 General Meeting, 2007, pp. 1-8. P. Preedavichit and S.C. Srivastava, Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch Considering FACTS Devices, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1998, pp. 251-257. G. Wei, Comparison Study of Genetic Algorithm and Evolutionary Programming, Proc. of the Third International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004, pp. 204-209. A.S. Uyar and B. Turkay, Evolutionary Algorithm for the Unit Commitment Problem, Turk J Elec. Engin., Vol. 16, No. 3, 2008, pp. 239-255. I. Musirin and T.K.A. Rahman, Evolutionary Programming Optimization Technique for Solving Reactive Power Planning in Power System, WSEAS int. Conf. on Evolutionary Computing, 005, pp. 239244. L.L. Lai and J.T. Ma, Evolutionary Programming Approach to Reactive Power Planning, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol.143, No.4, 1996, pp. 365-370. L.J. Cai, I. Erlich, Optimal Choice and Allocation of FACTS Devices using Genetic Algorithms, Proceedings on Twelfth Intelligent Systems Application to Power Systems Conference, 2003, pp. 16. S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui and A. J. Germond, Optimal Location of FACTS Devices to Enhance Power System Security, Proceeding on IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference, Vol. 3, 2003, pp.1-7. VIII. BIOGRAPHIES Nor Rul Hasma Abdullah was born in Pahang, Malaysia on 1978. She received her BEng from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2002 and MEng from Kolej Universiti Tun Hussein Onn, Malaysia. She is currently pursuing her PhD in power system at Universiti Teknologi MARA Malaysia. Her research interests include power system stability and Artificial Intelligent techniques. She has written more than 5 technical papers in the international conferences and journals.

Associate Professor Dr. Ismail Musirin obtained Diploma of Electrical Power Engineering in 1987, Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Hons) in 1990; both from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, MSc in Pulsed Power Technology in 1992 from University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom and PhD in Electrical Engineering from Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia in 2004. He has published 2 books and more than 120 technical papers in the international and national, conferences and journals. His research interest includes power system stability, optimization techniques, distributed generation and artificial intelligence. To date he is currently the Chair, IEEE Malaysia-Power and Energy (PES) Chapter. Dr. Muhammad Murtadha Othman received B.Eng. (Hons) from Staffordshire University, England in 1998; M.Sc from Universiti Putra Malaysia in 2000 and Ph.D from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in 2006. His area of research interests are artificial intelligence, transfer capability assessment and reliability studies in a deregulated power system. To date, he is currently the Chair, Centre for Electrical Power Engineering Studies (CEPES) (Formerly known as the Head of Department), Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. He is also a member of IEEE. He has published more than 50 papers in the international and national, conferences and journals.

830