1

Distributed Power Flow Calculation for

Whole Networks Including Transmission and
Distribution
Hongbin Sun and Boming Zhang

Abstract-- Traditionally, transmission and distribution power

flows are studied separately. But lots of large cities have their
hybrid transmission and distribution networks. In order to
achieve a global unified power flow solution, transmission and
distribution networks are studied as a whole in this paper. Global
power flow (GPF) equation is built as a mathematical model for
the global power system. Based upon the master-slave-typed
feature of the global power system, a master-slave-splitting (MSS)
iterative method is developed for balancing the boundary
mismatch between the transmission and distribution networks. In
this method, the GPF problem of large scale is split into a
transmission power flow and lots of distribution power flow subproblems, which supports on-line geographically distributed
computation. In order to fit the different features between
transmission and distribution networks, each sub-problem can be
solved with different algorithms. Several case studies are carried
out, and accuracy, efficiency and reliability of the proposed
method are verified.
Index Termsdistributed computing, load flow analysis,
transmission system, distribution system.

I.

INTRODUCTION

n China, almost all the large cities, such as Beijing city,

have a hybrid 500/220/110kV transmission and 10kV
distribution networks. In order to face keen competition in
market, each power grid company is required to make the best
use of its own controllable resources installed in the whole
transmission and distribution networks. As a result, it is
necessary to develop valid methods for doing analysis and
optimization in planning and operation of the global power
system[1,2].
The transmission and distribution systems have been
studied separately as two distinct branches over the past
years. But in fact, great benefit can be derived from global
coordinated control between transmission and distribution
This work was supported by Special Fund of the National Basic Research
Program of China (NO. 2004CB217904) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NO. 50323002 and 50595414)
Hongbin Sun is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, State Key
Laboratory of Power Systems, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
(phone:
+86-10-62783086;
fax:
+86-10-62783086;
e-mail:
shb@tsinghua.edu.cn).
Boming Zhang is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, State Key
Laboratory of Power Systems, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084, China (email: zhangbm@tsinghua.edu.cn).

978-1-4244-1904-3/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

systems. In order to implement a global coordination, global

state estimation (GSE) for whole transmission and distribution
networks is studed in reference [2]. In this paper, another
topic named as global power flow (GPF) is studied.
By now, almost all the transmission control centers have
equipped with EMS [3], and many distribution control centers
have also equipped with DMS [4]. In these computer systems,
power flow calculations can be done online for transmission
system and distribution systems respectively. Meanwhile,
WAN based communication technology is available for the
rapid communication between EMS and DMS. It becomes
more and more feasible to achieve an unified GPF solution by
exchanging little boundary information between existing EMS
and DMS.
Traditionally, transmission and distribution power flows are
studied separately [5,6]. The distribution system is treated as
equivalent load in transmission system with the equivalent
load power as a known, while the transmission system is
treated as equivalent power supply source in the distribution
system with power source voltage as a known. As a result,
power and voltage mismatches will arise at the boundary
nodes. Some shortcomings in traditional method are listed as
follows: (1) The static characteristic of equivalent load in a
transmission system is implicated in power flow equations of
corresponding distribution
system.
The composite
characteristic of the equivalent load for transmission system is
difficult to be modeled [7], which deteriorates the accuracy of
transmission power flow analysis. (2) There is always no
common reference for the voltage angles at the root nodes of
different distribution feeders. As a result, the power flows
produced by fictitious closed loops between feeders can not
be simulated. Moreover, its difficult to implement network
reconfiguration with unknown root node voltages [8]. (3) It is
difficult to implement the global optimized coordination
among transmission and distribution controllable resources,
which impairs the security and economy of global power
system. One example is that for the transmission system, the
correctness of voltage stability analysis can not been assured
if operation of the OLTC installed in distribution system is
ignored in load modelling [9].
Several technological characteristics of the GPF can be
listed as follows: (1) The size of a real-life global power

2
system is tremendous. (2) The transmission and distribution
systems differ in voltage level, topology structure, parameter
of element and value level of power flow. Each of them needs
its own suitable power flow algorithm. (3) The models for
transmission and distribution networks are built and
maintained in geographically distributed EMS and DMS
respectively, which requires the algorithm supporting
geographically distributed computation. (4) Three-phase
unbalance is one of the main features of a distribution system
distinguished from the balanced transmission system, which
should be also considered in the GPF calculation.
Historically, several piecewise methods have ever been
proposed for calculating power flow of large-scale
interconnected power systems in parallel [10,11]. A series of
splitting methods have been proposed to support distributed
or parallel computation for solving some optimization
problems in large-scale interconnected power systems, such
as state estimation [12-16] and optimal power flow [17-20].
However, these methods were oriented to pure transmission
systems with equilibrium partitions (with same voltage levels),
and dont meet well the special requirements of the hybrid
GPF problem described above.
II.

METHOD

the transmission system make up the node set C M ; the rest

nodes of distribution system make up the node set C S . Then
the voltage vector V& of the global power system can be
decomposed into V&M , V&B and V&S , which denote the master
voltage, boundary voltage and slave voltage respectively.
B. GPF Equations
In a global power system, M and S have been separated via
B, thus the GPF equations can be formulated as:

S& M (VM ) S& MM (V&M ) S& MB (V&M ,V&B ) = 0

&
S B (VB ) S& BM (V&M ,V&B ) S& BB (V&B ) = S& BS (V&B ,V&S )

(1)

S& S (VS ) S& SB (V&B ,V&S ) S& SS (V&S ) = 0

where,

S&

S&

and

S&

(2)
denote the complex vectors of power

injection in the corresponding node sets, S& XY denotes the

A. Global Power Systems

As shown in Fig. 1, the global power system is a typical
master-slave-typed system. Here the transmission system is
the master system with a detailed structure of the generalized
power supply seen from the distribution system, while the
distribution system is the slave system with a detailed
structure of the generalized load seen from the transmission
system.
(Boudary System)
M
(Master
System)

contributions of all of the distribution loads along feeders, but

also the contribution of distribution network configuration.
Such a load is expressed implicitly by complicated nonlinear
distribution power flow equations.
In Fig. 1, the load nodes in the transmission system are
taken as root nodes of the distribution feeders, which make up
the node set of the boundary system B, C B ; the rest nodes of

Transmission
System

S
(Slave
System)
Distribution
System

Fig. 1 Global power system with master-slave type

The transmission system can be understood as a voltage

source for distribution system with a smaller internal
impedance than that in the distribution system, hence the
effect of the distribution system on the transmission system is
weaker. On the other hand, the state of the distribution system
is principally determined by the transmission system. This is
the physical background why the global power system is taken
as a master-slave-typed system. In fact, the generalized load
can be taken as such a load with a complicated static
characteristics of voltage, which includes not only the

complex vector of branch power flow from the node set C X

directly to CY . Obviously, taking transmission as master and
distribution as slave, (1) and (2) are the well-known
transmission and distribution power flow equations
respectively.
C. The MSS Method for GPF
The MSS based iterative method[2] is presented as follows:
Step1 initialize the boundary voltages V&B( 0 ) , k=0;
Step2 let V&B( k ) be the reference voltage and calculate
distribution voltage V&S(
(k + 1)
S& BS
by V&B(

k)

k + 1)

by solving (2) and then calculate

and V&S( k +1) just obtained;

(k + 1)
Step3 Substitute S& BS
into (1) and solve it to obtain the

transmission voltage V&M(

k + 1)

V&B(

k + 1)

Step4 If V&B(k + 1) V&B(k ) is less than the tolerance , stop;

otherwise, k=k+1 and then turn back to step2.
Some discussions on MSS method above are done as
follows:
(1) The MSS method is also a type of piecewise method,
where the GPF problem of large scale is decoupled naturally
into the transmission and distribution power flow subproblems. But it is distinguished from the traditional
piecewise ones equally partitioned in capacity and voltage
level [10,11]. Here the power of the equivalent loads of the

3
transmission system is taken as an intermediate variable S& BS ,
which appropriately reflects the comparatively weak effect of
the distribution system on the transmission system. On the
other hand, V&B is specified and considered as a reference
voltage source for the distribution system, which reflects the
determinative effect of the state of the transmission system on
that of the distribution system. Such a special iterative method
reflects the different physical positions between the
transmission and distribution systems and ensures the
convergence.
(2) The MSS method for GPF calculation can be described
in a comprehensible way, i.e. in calculating the distribution
power flow, the voltage of root node of distribution system is
gotten from the transmission power flow solution and is fixed,
while in calculating the transmission power flow, the load data
of the transmission system are gotten from the distribution
power flow solution and are fixed, these two parts of power
flow calculations are alternated and repeated until
convergence is achieved. Obviously, the proposed method is
compatible with any existing power flow software, since no
specific technique is required for solving the transmission and
distribution power flow equations. As a result, we can take
suitable algorithm for each of them, which is regarded as an
important characteristic of the GPF problem presented above.
Furthermore, we can use engineering quantity instead of per
unit for data exchange to meet the needs for different bases
for transmission and distribution power flows to ensure the
good performance of the GPF calculation.
(3) Distribution power flow equation (2) is yet of a large
scale, and can be split further into numerous power flow subproblems of distribution feeders:

( )

( )

S& Si VSi S& Si Bi V&Bi ,V&Si S& Si Si V&Si = 0 i=1, , nF (3)

Thus, based on the MSS method, a GPF problem of large

scale is split into a transmission power flow problem of large
scale and lots of distribution feeder power flow sub-problems
of small scale, which supports parallel or distributed
computation efficiently.
D. Online Distributed Computation
In China, there generally exist a transmission control center
and several distribution control centers in a large city. Due to
geographically distributed location of these control centers,
online GPF calculation should support such a geographically
distributed computation. Such a distributed structure for
online GPF calculation can be explained by Fig.2, where TPF
and DPF denote the transmission and distribution power flows
respectively.
EMS
(TPF)

V&

B1

&
S&BS1 V B 2

S& BS 2 V&B 3

S& BS 3

DMS1

DMS2

DMS3

(DPF1)

(DPF2)

(DPF3)

WAN

Fig. 2 The distributed structure for online GPF calculation

In Fig.2, the solutions for TPF and DPFs are performed in

EMS and DMSs respectively, and EMS communicates with
DMS through wide area network (WAN) in each MSS
iteration step. In the iterative process, EMS transfers root
node voltage of distribution system to each DMS, while each
DMS transfers load power of transmission system to EMS.
The global convergence of the GPF calculation is judged by
EMS. Such a proposed distributed structure is compatible
with any existing EMS and DMS with almost no code
modification.
E. Discussions about Unbalanced Distribution System
Three-phase unbalance in the distribution system should be
treated in the GPF calculation. Two situations are discussed
as follows:
(1) The transmission and distribution power flows are all
modeled in three-phase. The MSS method can be easily
generalized to the case with three-phase model. However, the
disadvantages of such a treatment are remarkable, i.e. the hard
burden of CPU and the insufficient utilization of the features
of the transmission and distribution systems.
(2) The transmission power flow is modeled in singlephase, while distribution power flow is modeled in threephase. Suppose that the root node voltage of distribution
system is of three-phase balance approximately, and the load
power of the transmission system is equal to the three-phase
power injection into the root node of distribution system. (a)
In the distribution power flow calculation, it is assumed that
the voltage at a root node in three-phase at each iterative step
is symmetric, i.e.
VB(ak ) = VB(bk ) = VB(ck )
k=0, 1,
(4)
(k)
(k)
(k)
o
o
Ba = Bb + 120 = Bc + 240
where, VB(ak ) and (Bka) are gotten from the single-phase
transmission power flow solution, the superscript k is the MSS
iteration counter, and the subscripts a, b, and c denote
different phase types. (b) In the single-phase transmission
(k )
power flow calculation, load power S& BS
is calculated by
accumulating 3 phase powers as
(k )
(k )
(k )
(k )
S& BS
= S& BSa
+ S& BSb
+ S& BSc
k=1, 2,
(5)
(k )
(k )
(k )
where S& BSa
, S& BSb
and S& BSc
are the load powers in three
phase calculated by three-phase imbalanced distribution
power flow.

III. NUMERICAL TESTS

In order to study the performance of the MSS method for
GPF calculation, five test global power systems, named as 5A,
11A, 14B, 30E, 118C and 118D, are constructed here. In
these test systems, four IEEE standard systems, including
IEEE 5, 14, 30 and 118 systems, are adopted as the

4
transmission parts, while five radial distribution systems,
named as A, B, C, D and E, are connected into transmission
systems as the partial loads of the transmission systems. For
example, the test system 30E is the combination of the
transmission system IEEE 30 and the distribution system E, as
shown in Fig.3. The static characteristics of the loads in the
distribution systems are modeled as
PL = ( 0.3VL2 + 0.5VL + 0.2 ) PLN

(6)

2
QL = ( 0.4VL + 0.4VL + 0.2 ) QLN
where VL denotes the voltage magnitude of the load node
along distributed feeders, and (PLN ,QLN ) is the nominal
power of the distributed load. More detailed information
about these test systems can be found in [21].

IEEE 30

Transmission
System

Distribution
System

Fig. 3 Schematic illustration for construction of the 30E test system

Firstly, in order to show the value of the GPF study, the

MSS based GPF method is compared with a traditional power
flow method for the 118D test system and the results are
shown in Table 1. First row of the table indicates boundary
nodes 2, 41 and 118 of the test system. VB , B , PBS and

calculated by power flow. ITPF denotes the traditional

independent transmission power flow calculated with given
loads (PBS ,QBS ) estimated by one step of forward sweep
calculation for corresponding distribution system with node
voltages at the nominal value. IDPF denotes the traditional
independent distribution power flow calculated with root node
voltages at the nominal value. GPF is a global power flow
solution. Obviously, global unified solution can not be
achieved by ITPF and IDPF, and dT (=GPF-ITPF) and dD
(=GPF-IDPF) denote the differences.
It can be seen from dT in Table 1 that the errors of
boundary voltage angle ( B ) and load power (PBS ,QBS ) are
all a bit large, which deteriorates the accuracy of transmission
power flow analysis. It can be also seen from the dT that the
error of boundary voltage magnitude ( VB ) is comparatively
much smaller, which validates the weak effect of the radial
distribution system on the transmission system.
Notice that dD of VB , B , PBS , and QBS in Table 1 are
also a bit large. For IDPF, the root node voltage angle is set to
zero to represent a phase reference for all the nodes within a
radial distribution feeder rooted from this root node. The
difference of B listed in the row of dD just denotes such a
fact that it is difficult for us to know beforehand the root node
voltage angles for different radial distribution feeders if the
distribution system is isolated with the transmission system.
But for different root nodes which supply a cluster of feeders,
the relative angles of these root node voltages are what we try
best to get by GPF study.

QBS in the table are the quantities at the boundary nodes

TABLE 1
COMPARISON AMONG THE RESULTS OF THE TRADITIONAL AND GPF METHODS FOR THE 118D TEST SYSTEM
Boundary
Node
Data
ITPF
IDPF
GPF
dT
dD

2
VB
(PU)
0.9731
1.0
0.9741
0.001
-0.0259

B
(o)
0.6847
0.0
1.2086
0.5239
1.2086

41
PBS
(MW)
18.40
18.19
17.77
-0.63
-0.42

QBS
(Mvar)
4.21
3.37
1.80
-2.41
-1.57

VB
(PU)
0.9682
1.0
0.9695
0.0013
-0.0305

B
(o)
-0.1186
0.0
0.4819
0.6005
0.4819

Due to the differences in the network structure and element

parameter between transmission and distribution systems,
numerical problem arises if single Newton-Raphson (N-R)
method is adopted for GPF [22]. For example, there are
several short branches with impedance of bout 0.001Ohm in the
distribution system E. As shown in Table 2, for N-R method,
the condition number of the Jacobian matrix of the 30E
system is much greater than that without distribution system
which badly affects the robustness of the GPF calculation.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON ON CONDITION NUMBERS BETWEEN 30E AND IEEE 30 SYSTEMS
IEEE 30
30E

118
PBS
(MW)
32.28
31.30
29.94
-2.34
-1.36

QBS
(Mvar)
6.80
5.48
4.02
-2.78
-1.46

VB
(PU)
0.9530
1.0
0.9535
0.0005
-0.0465

B
(o)
-6.1436
0.0
-5.6851
0.4585
-5.6851

Condition number of the Jacobian matrix

for N-R method

PBS
(MW)
28.81
27.71
26.67
-2.14
1.04
303

QBS
(Mvar)
5.04
4.52
3.91
-1.13
-0.61
1.2e6

Because of the large condition number for IEEE 30E

system, 46 iterations are needed (see Table 3) if conventional
single N-R method is used. In this test, single precision
variables are uniformly adopted and for the N-R method, the
specified tolerance = 0.0001PU, i.e. max( Pi)0.01MW
and max( Qi)0.01Mvar. In addition, due to the larger r/x
ratio in distribution system, the FDLF method [5] cant
converge even after 100 iterations. However good
convergence has been achieved by the MSS method, where
just 3 MSS iterations are needed to get convergence. In Table

5
3 and the following text, the FDLF and the forward/backward
sweep algorithms [8] are adopted by the MSS method to solve
the transmission and distribution power flows respectively.
Thus each sub-iteration for transmission system includes a P iteration and a Q-V iteration of FDLF algorithm, and a subiteration for distribution system is an iteration of
forward/backward sweep algorithm. As shown in Table 3, the
total numbers of sub-iterations for the transmission and
distribution systems are 6 and 11 respectively, which validate
the excellent performance of the MMS method.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON ON CONVERGENCE AMONG DIFFERENT METHODS FOR 30E
SYSTEM

N-R
method
46

FDLF
MSS method
method
NMSS
NT
ND
3
6
11
Iteration
Not
number
converged
>100
Notes: For the MSS method, NMSS denotes the number of MSS iteration, NT and
ND denote the numbers of sub-iterations for transmission and distribution
systems respectively.

The transmission and distribution systems are remarkably

different in power bases. Usually, the unit of active power in
the transmission system is MW, while that in the distribution
system is kW, which makes it difficult to achieve a consistent
accuracy for these two transmission and distribution systems.
In Table 4, the maximum power mismatch at distribution load
nodes is 6.3kW-j5.5kvar after a convergent GPF calculation
of single N-R method, which satisfies the overall convergent
tolerance (=0.0001PU) and is precise enough for
transmission system but does not meet the requirement of
distribution system. But good accuracy can be achieved by the
MSS method, where the algorithm and the base of per-unit
power can be different for the transmission and the
distribution systems.
TABLE 4

NT
ND

TABLE 5
ITERATIVE NUMBER OF THE PROPOSED MSS METHOD
System
5A
14B
30E
118C
118D
NMSS
4
3
3
2
3

6
11

9
8

8
9

In order to achieve a global unified power flow solution, the

GPF problem is studied in this paper. Based upon the masterslave-typed feature of global power system, a MSS method
for calculating large-scale and hybrid GPF problem is
developed.
In the MSS method, the GPF problem of large scale is split
into a transmission power flow and a number of distribution
power flow sub-problems of small scale, and different power
flow algorithm and base of per-unit power can be adopted to
fit the different features between the transmission and
distribution systems, and three-phase unbalance of
distribution system can also be treated reasonably. The
geographically distributed structure for online GPF
calculation is presented.
Several case studies are carried out and the results show
that good accuracy and high efficiency of the MSS based
method can be obtained.
REFERENCES
[1]

N. Singh, E. Kliokys, H. Feldmann, R. Kssel, R. Chrustowski, C.

Jaborowics, Power system modelling and analysis in a mixed energy
management and distribution management system, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, V 13, N 3, pp.1143-1149, Aug. 1998.

[2]

H.B. Sun, B.M. Zhang, Global state estimation for whole transmission and
distribution networks, Electric Power System Research, May 2005, V74, N2,
P187-195

[3]

T. E. Dy-Liacco, Modern control centers and computer networking, IEEE

Computer Applications in Power, V 7, N 4, pp. 17-22, Oct. 1994.

[4]

W.

R.

Cassel,

Distribution

management

system:

functions and

payback, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 8, N 3, pp.796-801,

Aug. 1993.
[5]

A. J. Monticelli,, A. V. Garcia, O. R. Saavedra, Fast decoupled load flow:

Hypothesis, derivations, and testing, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
V 5, N 4, pp. 1425-1431, Nov. 1990.

SYSTEM

Iterative numbers of the proposed MSS method are shown

in Table.5. Because of few times of communication between
M and S (NMSS is about 3) , which is suitable for online
geographically distributed computation. And the total number
of sub-iterations is not large, which verifies the efficiency of
the MSS method.

7
10

IV. CONCLUSIONS

COMPARISON ON ACCURACY BETWEEN THE N-R AND MSS METHODS FOR 30E

Mismatch at 1-th
Mismatch at 90-th
distribution node
distribution node
P
Q
P
Q
(kW)
(kvar)
(kW)
(kvar)
N-R method
6.3
-5.5
0.3
2.9
MSS method
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Notes: the load data at 1-th and 90-th distribution nodes are 10.2kW+j3.1kvar
and 39.2kW+j10.5kvar, respectively.

14
12

[6]

T. H. Chen, M. S. Chen, K. J. Hwang, P. Kotas, E. A. Chebli, Distribution

system power flow analysis A rigid approach, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, V 6, N 3, pp. 1146-1152, Jul. 1991.

[7]

IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance,

Bibliography on Load Models for Power Flow and Dynamic Performance
Simulation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 10, N 1, pp.523-538,
Feb. 1995.

[8]

J. C. Wang, H. D. Chiang, D. Gary R.; Efficient algorithm for real-time

network

reconfiguration

in

large

scale

unbalanced

distribution

systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 11, N 1, pp. 511-517,

Feb. 1996.
[9]

L. Rikard, K. Daniel, Distribution system modelling for voltage stability

studies, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 11, N 4, pp. 1677-1682,
Nov. 1996.

[10]

H. H. Happ, Diakoptics and Piecewise Methods, IEEE Transactions on

Power Apparatus and Systems, V 89, N 7, pp.1373-1382, Sep/Oct. 1970.

[11]

B. M. Zhang, N. D. Xiang, S. Y. Wang, Unified Piecewise Solution of

Power-System Networks Combining Both Branch Cutting and Node

6
Tearing, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, V
11, N 4, pp.283-288, Oct. 1989.
[12]

T. V. Cutsem, M. Ribbens-Parella, "Critical survey of hierarchical methods

for state estimation of electric power systems," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, V 102, N 10, pp.3415-3424, Oct. 1983.

[13]

K. Seidu, H. Mukai, "Parallel multi-area state estimation," IEEE

Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, V 104, N 5, pp.1026-1034,
1985.

[14]

S. Y. Lin and C. H. Lin, An implementable distributed state estimator and

distributed bad data processing schemes for electric power systems, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, V9, N3, pp.1277-1284, Aug.1994.

[15]

D. M. Falcao; F. F. Wu, L. Murphy, Parallel and distributed state

estimation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 10, N 2, pp.724-730,
May 1995.

[16]

Reza Ebrahimian and Ross Baldick, State Estimation Distributed

Processing, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 15, N4, pp.12401246, Nov.2000.

[17]

J.A.Momoh, L.G.Dias, S.X.Gao, R.Adapa, Economic operation and

planning of multi-area interconnected power systems, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, V 10, N2, pp1044-1053, May 1995.

[18]

B.H.Kim and R.Baldick, A comparison of distributed optimal power flow

algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 15, N2, pp858-863,
May 2000.

[19]

J.A.Aguado, V.H.Quintana, and A.J.Conejo, Inter-utilities power-exchange

coordination a market-oriented approach, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, V 16, N3, pp513-519, Aug. 2001.

[20]

A.G.Bakirtzis and P.N.Biskas, A decentralized solution to the DC-OPF of

interconnected power systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, V 18,
N 3, pp.1007-1013, Aug. 2003.

[21]

H. B. Sun, "The studies on global reactive optimal control of power

system," Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing: Tshinghua University, 1996.

[22]

D. J. Tylavsky, P. E. Crouch, L. F. Jarriel, et al, The Effects of Precision

and Small Impedance Branches on Power Flow Robustness, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, V 9, N 1, pp 6-14, Feb. 1994.

BIOGRAPHIES
Hongbin Sun(M2000) received his double B. S. degrees from Tsinghua
University in 1992, the Ph.D from E&E Dept. of Tsinghua University in 1997.
He is now a professor in Dept. of E.E., Tsinghua Univ, and assistant director of
State Key Laboratory of Power Systems in China. His research interests include
energy management system, voltage optimization and control, applications of
information theory and data mining technology in power systems. He won the
second rank prize of china educational committee science and technology
progress in 1995 and the first rank prize of Beijing science and technology
progress in 2004 respectively.
Boming Zhang(M1994,SM1995) received his doctorate from Dept. of E.E.,
Tsinghua Univ. in 1985. He is now a chief professor in Dept. of E.E. of
Tsinghua Univ, and vice director of State Key Laboratory of Power Systems in
China. His research interests include of power system operation and control. He
won the second rank prize of Chinese national science and technology progress
in 1992.