You are on page 1of 16

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

Hypothetical Study For Selection Of Optimal Location Of Multiple FACTS Devices Under Contingent Condition Using Different Objective Functions
B.P. Saoji1 and A.P. Vaidya2
1

Smt. Indira Gandhi College of Engineering, Mumbai University, Navi Mumbai, India 2 Walchand College of Engineering, Shivaji University, Sangli, India

ABSTRACT
Improvement in the system's reactive power handling capacity incorporating FACTS devices is a remedy for prevention of voltage instability and hence voltage collapse. FACTS devices are very costly and need to be placed optimally. In this study dynamic programming approach based on Bellman’s principle of optimality was used to solve multi objective optimization problem to find unique optimal location of single and multiple FACTS devices under normal and single line outage contingent condition. Power system loadability enhancement is considered as an individual objective function evaluated under normal and single line contingent condition. Then reduced active power loss and minimum voltage deviation for enhanced loadability was evaluated for which unique location of FACTS devices is calculated. The operational and load constraints are considered for optimal procedure. Static Var Compensator (SVC) and Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) are used to achieve the objectives. Simulation is performed on IEEE 30 Bus system to test the effectiveness of the proposed method.

KEYWORDS:
SVC, TCSC, Power System Loadability, Power loss, Voltage Deviation, Line contingency.

1. INTRODUCTION
Voltage instability and hence voltage collapse is a major concern in the power system over several years as incidences are recorded worldwide [1][2]. Voltage stability is defined as the ability of system to supply load and maintain voltage level of all load bus in range of standard in both normal and abnormal conditions. The power systems which are having shortage of reactive power due to fault or heavy load on it, experiences a voltage collapse [3]. So reserve of reactive power source is necessary for the stable operation of power system. The voltage collapse points are also known as maximum loadability points (MLP). The loadability margin of a system is defined as the amount of power that the system can supply before it undergoes voltage collapse. Therefore to prevent voltage collapse several studies point out that the use of FACTs devices stabilize an unstable power system to move the system into a stable voltage operating point[4][5][6]. A system is said to be voltage secure, if it has sufficient loading margin under N-1 contingency which implies that the system should be able to remain in a security condition under all important first contingencies.

71

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

72

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

deviation was calculated considering both as an individual objective function. The operational and load constraint are considered. This paper is organised as follows – section II describes in brief FACTS devices. In section III individual problem formulation is described in detail. Section IV gives information about dynamic programming. Results and discussion of a case study is presented in section V. Conclusion is summarised in section VI. 2.

FACTS DEVICES MODELLING

2.1 Static VAr Compensator
A static VAR compensator (SVC) is an electrical device for providing fast-acting reactive power compensation on high voltage transmission networks and it can contribute to improve the voltage profiles in the transient state and therefore, in improving the quality performances of the electric services. A SVC is one of FACTS controllers, which can control one or more variables in a power system. A Static VAr Compensator is capable of both generating and absorbing variable reactive power continuously as opposed to discrete values of fixed and switched shunt capacitors or reactors. Further improved system steady state performance can be obtained from SVC applications. With continuously variable reactive power supply, the voltage at the SVC bus may be maintained smoothly over a wide range of active power transfers or system loading conditions. This entails the reduction of network losses and provision of adequate power quality to the electric energy end-users.

Figure 1- Model of SVC

From figure 1 the current drawn by SVC is given by equation as
I SVC = jB SVC V K

(1) (2)

Reactive power drawn by SVC that is the same as injected power to bus k is given as
2 QSCVC = QK = − B SVCVK

2.2 Thyristor Controlled Series capacitor (TCSC)
TCSC is series type FACTS device which provide series capacitive reactance compensation. The characteristics for TCSCs consist of capacitive and inductive region; it can increase or decrease the transmission line reactance. These devices can cause increasing the transmission power capacity of lines, static voltage security margin enhancement, voltage profile improvement, and decreasing power loss. The TCSC is modelled as series compensation is shown in fig.2

Figure 2 - Model of TCSC

73

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

The real and reactive power injected at buses i and j with TCSC connected between buses i and j and line having impedance of Zij = (rij + jxij) and –jxc are in series expressed as
c 2 Pi = Vi ∆Gij - Vi Vj[ ∆Gij cosδ ij + ∆Bij sinδ ij ] c 2 Q i = − Vi ∆Bij - Vi Vj[ ∆Gij sinδ ij − ∆Bij cosδ ij ] c 2 Pi = Vi ∆Gij - Vi Vj[ ∆Gij cosδ ij − ∆Bij sinδ ij ] c 2 Q i = Vi ∆Bij - Vi V j[ ∆Gij sinδ ij − ∆Bij cosδ ij ]

(3) (4) (5) (6)

Where
∆Gij = xc rij ( xc − 2 xij ) 2 2 2 2 ( rij + xij )( rij + ( xij − xc ) )

and

2 2 − xc ( r − x + x x ) ij ij c ij ∆Bij = 2 2 2 2 ( rij + xij )( rij + ( xij − xc ) )

(7)

δ ij = δ i − δ j = −δ ji

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
This paper focuses on the optimal location and level of compensation of FACTS devices. This paper indentifies three objective function viz. Power system loadability, power loss in transmission line and voltage deviation. Problem formulation now boils down to maximization of power system loadability, minimization of power loss and voltage deviation.

3.1 Power System Loadability
Maximum Loading Point (MLP) λ is the value of loading factor at the critical point or loadability margin of a system is defined as the amount of power that the system can supply before it undergoes voltage collapse. The P – V curve is shown in fig.3

Figure 3 - P – V curve

The loads on power system increases gradually from initial point to the voltage collapse point i.e. up to MLP. At every load level system state is calculated until the maximum or critical condition is reached. In order to assess and enhance voltage security conditions, λ is then evaluated using Dynamic Programming. The P- V curve is shown in figure 3. f = max(λ) where λ is the maximum loadability factor. (8)

74

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

3.2 Active Power Loss
The aim is to minimize total active power loss
2 P = ∑ [V 2 +V j − 2ViV j cos(δi − δ j )]Yij cosϕ ij i L

(9)

in transmission line. where Vi and δi are the magnitude and angle of voltage at bus i, respectively and Yij and φij are the magnitude and angle of the admittance of the line between bus i to bus j.

3.3 Voltage Deviation
To have an improved voltage regulation (profile), the voltage deviation at each load bus must be made as small as possible. The voltage deviation to be minimized is as follows:
VD = ∑ (V K − VrefK ) K
2

(10)

where Vk is the voltage magnitude at load bus k and Vref k is the nominal or reference voltage at bus k. All the three objective functions are subject to the following constraints – Active power balance in the network (i = 1, 2,…, NB) Pi ( V, δ) − Pgi + Pdi = 0 1. Reactive power balance in the network (i =NV +1, NV +2,… , NB

(11)

Q i ( V, δ) − Q gi + Q di = 0

(12)

2. Security related constraints called as soft constraints a. Limits on real power generation.
min max Pgi ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgi

(i = 1, 2,..., NG) (NV +1, NV+2,..., NB) (i = 2, 3,… , NB)

(13) (14) (15)

b. Limits on voltage magnitude

Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax
c. Limits voltage angles

δ imin ≤ δ i ≤ δ imax

3. Functional constrain which is a function of control variable a. Limits on reactive power min max Q gi ≤ Q gi ≤ Q gi (i=1, 2,…,NG) Line flow limits

(16)

Pfmin ≤ Pf ≤ Pfmax

(f = 1,……, Noele)

(17)

The active power and reactive power flow on lines can be applied as follows, The real power flow equation is

Pi ( V, δ) = Vi ∑ V j (G ij cos( δ i − δ j ) + B ij sin(δ i − δ j ))
i =1

NB

(18)

75

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

The reactive power flow equation is

Qi (V , δ ) = Vi ∑ V j (Gij sin(δ i − δ j ) − Bij cos(δ i − δ j ))
i =1

NB

(19)

Where, NG is number of generator buses NB is number of buses Noele is number of transmission lines NV is the number of voltage control buses Pi is the active power injection into bus i Qi is the reactive power injection into i Pdi is the active load (demand) on bus i Qdi is the reactive load (demand) on bus i Pgi is the active generation on bus i Qgi is the reactive generation on bus i Vi is the magnitude of voltage at bus i δ i is the voltage phase angle at bus i Yij = Gij+jBij are the elements of admittance matrix

4. PROPOSED ALGORITHM
1. Read data ai, bi, and ci (i=1, 2,…, NG) load on each bus, line data for the power system network. 2. Obtain YBUS using the Y-bus algorithm. 3. Calculate the initial values of Pgi (i=1, 2,…, NG) and λ by assuming that PL=0. Then the problem can be solved by equation
NG F Pgi = ∑ F Pgi & i=1

( )

( ) ∑P
NG i =1

gi

= PD and the solution can be obtained directly using eq.

Pgi =

λ − bi
2a i

PD + ∑

NG

L (i = 1,2,...., NG ) And

λ=

i =1 NG

bi 2a i

1 ∑ i =1 2 a i

.

4. Initialize all λpi= λ( i=1,2,…,NB), λqi= 0 ( i=NV+1,NV+2,…, NB), Vi= 1p.u.( i=2,3,…,NB), and δi= 0( i=1,2,…, NB). 5. Calculate the Jacobian and Hessian matrix elements

∆Pg    ∆δ   ∂L [H ]  ∆λ p  = −     ∂Pg ∆V      ∆λq  

∂L ∂δ

∂L ∂λ p

∂L ∂V

∂L  ∂λq 

T

 

6. Using Gauss elimination method to find ∆Pg, ∆δ,∆λp,∆V,∆ λq. 7. Check convergence

76

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013
NB NB NB NB  NG  2 2 2 2 ( ∆ P ) + ( ∆ δ ) + ( ∆ λ ) + ( ∆ V ) + (∆λqi ) 2  ≤ ε ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ gi i pi i  i=2 i =1 i = NV +1 i = NV +1  i =1 

8.

9.

10. 11.

and optimality conditions. If condition is not satisfied then GOTO step 6 else GOTO step 8. Modify the variables , Pgi = Pgi+ ∆Pgi (i=1, 2… NG) δi=δi+∆δi (i=1, 2… NB) λpi =λpi +∆λpi (i=1, 2… NB) Vi= Vi+ ∆VI (i=NV+1, NV+2…, NB) λqi =λqi +∆λqi (i=NV+1,NV+2,…., NB) Check the limits. If any limit of a variable is violated, then impose or remove power flow equation of a penalty for inequality. Add or remove derivatives for penalty or equation change and GOTO step 4 to update the solution. Calculate the objective function. Stop.

77

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

5. DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING METHOD
Dynamic programming is an approach to solve the optimization problem in which the problem is broken down into number of sub problems called stages. These sub problems are then solved sequentially until the original problem finally is solved. The methods used for solving a sub problem are calculus, linear programming etc. or whichever is suitable for given problem structure. The solution of the Dynamic programming problem is based upon Bellman’s principle of optimality. Consider a system whose state may change in every phase Di for a given decision. The number of phases Di (i =0,1,….,n) may be finite or numerable infinite. A certain sequences of decision from D0 to Dn are defined as a “policy” and a sequence of decision belonging to a policy is defined “sub- policy”. If a function with values related to the changes in state is assigned, and it is required to optimize that function, the following statement holds: “An optimal policy has the property that whatever the initial state and initial decisions are, the remaining decision must continue an optimal policy with regard to state resulting from the first decision.” By applying this principle, the objective function can be optimized.

6. CASE STUDY
The proposed study is carried out on IEEE 30 Bus system.

Figure 4 – Single line diagram IEEE 30 Bus System

The proposed study is divided into two parts as – Study A – Normal operation of system Study B – Line outage, contingent condition

6.1 Study A – Normal Operation
As the load on each bus increases gradually and approaches Maximum Loading Point (MLP), the supply and demand increases leading to rapid increase in real and reactive power loss
78

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

consequently system tends to more towards voltage instability and may lead to voltage collapse. The only way to save the system from voltage collapse is to reduce the reactive power load or supply additional reactive power prior to reaching the point of voltage collapse for the stable operation of power system. Initially all load buses and all transmission line except transformer connected line are candidate for optimal location of SVC and TCSC respectively. In this study there are 979 candidate locations for SVC and TCSC under normal operation. This is obtained by connecting SVC or TCSC individually at a bus and SVC plus TCSC together at all possible candidate locations. Starting from base load, the load is increase gradually till the voltage collapse point is reached, with SVC and TCSC size varied from -1 to 1 and -0.8 to 0.8 respectively to maximize the system loadability. For this objective function actual active power loss and voltage deviation is calculated. The enhanced loadability with SVC connected to 24 possible combinations is shown in Table1.
Table1 – Enhanced Loadability with SVC at bus No. 24

Bus No. 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 14

Loadability 1.559595 1.556555 1.556039 1.552410 1.553073 1.553906 1.552846 1.551707

Bus No. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1.553628 1.552434 1.553290 1.552735 1.552865 1.552817 1.554272 1.554191

Bus No. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1.553235 1.554534 1.552676 1.551287 1.552272 1.553828 1.551227 1.551290

From this Table1 the first maximum five enhanced loadability conditions are considered for further study which is shown in Table (2). Out of these five conditions, for a given loadability the minimum active power loss was calculated one by one for all five locations. Thereafter for a given loadability the minimum voltage deviation was calculated one by one for all five locations. Similar procedure was repeated for TCSC and SVC and TCSC combined together. The results are shown in Table 2, 3 and 4. All values in tables are in pu.

79

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

Table 2 - SVC Result Under Normal Condition

Table 3 - TCSC Result Under Normal Condition

Obj. Fun

Minimization of Power Loss

Minimization of Voltage deviation

Tr. Line No. 1 2 4 7 14 1 2 4 7 14 1 2 4 7 14

1.561819 1.583568 1.568081 1.558326 1.548886 1.561819 1.583568 1.568081 1.558326 1.548886 1.561819 1.583568 1.568081 1.558326 1.548886

Power Loss
0.1057 0.1122 0.1068 0.1031 0.0994 0.0909 0.0969 0.0924 0.0896 0.0860 0.0909 0.0969 0.0924 0.0896 0.0917

Voltage Deviation
0.3868 0.3921 0.3786 0.3625 0.3325 0.2755 0.2744 0.2758 0.2756 0.2823 0.2755 0.2744 0.2758 0.2756 0.2350

xc
-0.0115 -0.0622 -0.0303 -0.0331 -0.0374 -0.0115 -0.0541 -0.0303 -0.0331 -0.0880 -0.0115 -0.0541 -0.0303 -0.0331 -0.0880

80

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

Table 4 - SVC and TCSC Result Under Normal Condition

6.2 Study B – Single Line Outage Contingent Condition
In proposed studies optimal placement and sizing of multiple FACTS devices under single line outage condition are simulated one by one to determine the severity of the contingency. During simulation it was observed that Line No. 36 outage is the most sever contingency. This outage reduces the loadability drastically to 1.352856 and from voltage profile it is observed that 14 buses violate the voltage stability margin as shown in fig5.
Normal Operation w/o Compensatation Line No.36 Outage w/o Compensatation

115 105
Voltage in KV

95 85 75 65 55 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Internal Bus no.

Figure 5 - Voltage profile under Line No.36 contingent w/o Compensation.

To obtain the location of FACTS devices optimally under line no. 36 outage, the same procedure was adopted as that of normal operation. For loadability as an objective function actual active power loss and voltage deviation was calculated.

81

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

Minimization of active power loss as an objective function with enhanced loadability under line no. 36 contingent was calculated. Minimization of voltage deviation as an objective function with enhanced loadability under line no. 36 contingent was calculated The results are shown Figure 6, 7 and 8. All values in table are in pu.
Only SVC Only TCSC SVC and TCSC togather

1.6

1.5 1.4 1.3 24, 2, 9-14 25, 14,
Internal Bus and Tr. Line No.

10-227,

31,

24-229,

33,

25-430,

35,

26-2

Figure 6 – Enhanced Loadability under line no. 36 contingent with compensation.
Only SVC Active Power Loss in pu Only TCSC SVC and TCSC togather

0.2

0.1

0 24, 2, 9-14 25, 14, 10-227, 31, 24-229, 33, Internal Bus and Tr. Line No. 25-430, 35, 26-2

Figure 7 - Minimized Power Loss under line no. 36 contingent with compensation.

Only SVC

Only TCSC

SVC and TCSC togather

1
Voltage Deviation in pu

0.5

0 24, 2, 9-14 25, 14, Internal 10-2 27, 31, 24-2 Bus and Tr.Line No. 29, 33, 25-4 30, 35, 26-2

Figure 8 - Minimized Voltage Deviation under line no. 36 contingent with compensation.

82

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

Table 5 - SVC and TCSC Compensation Table under line no. 36 contingent

Obj Fun

Minimized Power Loss

Minimized Voltage Deviation

Bus No. 9 10 24 25 26 9 10 24 25 26 9 10 24 25 26

Tr. Line No 14 2 2 4 2 14 2 2 4 2 14 2 2 4 2

Qsvc -0.5359 -0.5505 -0.4043 -0.2630 -0.2115 -0.7917 -0.6974 -0.2948 -0.2946 -0.1235 -0.7917 -0.6974 -0.6419 -0.2946 -0.1235

xc -0.0705 -0.0443 -0.0439 -0.0303 -0.0771 -0.2634 -0.2634 -0.2634 -0.0303 -0.0880 -0.2634 -0.2634 -0.0347 -0.0303 -0.088

Result from figure 6,7,8 and 9 and 10 clearly indicate that SVC at Bus No.24 and TCSC at Tr. Line No. 2 are the optimum location for individual FACTS location as well as composite (SVC and TCSC used together) FACTS location. With this combination loadability is enhanced up to 1.564448pu, also it reduces power loss to 0.1304pu and minimizes the voltage deviation up to 0.4740pu for obj. function of enhanced loadability for minimization of Power Loss.
115 110
Voltage in KV

105 100 95 90 85
Enhanced Loadability w/o compensation Enhanced Loadbility with compensation Enhanced Loadability with Power loss with compensatation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 Internal Bus No.
Figure 9 – voltage Profile under normal condition for various Obj. Function

83

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

120 110 100
Voltage in KV

90 80 70 60 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Internal Bus No. Enhanced Loadability w/o compensation Enhanced Loadability with compensatation Enhanced Loadability with Power Loss with compensatation Enhanced Loadability with VD with compensatation

Figure 7 - voltage Profile under line no. 36 contingent for various Obj. Function Table 6 – Line Flow under Line No. 36 contingent for different Objective Functions

Line Line ELWC ELC ELPLC ELVDC ELWC ELC ELPLC ELVDC No No 1 0.8402 0.9943 0.7258 0.7529 22 0.0950 0.1032 0.1050 0.1043 2 0.4127 0.4706 0.2429 0.2666 23 0.0483 0.0495 0.0514 0.0507 3 0.1912 24 0.1073 0.2448 0.2856 0.1777 0.0886 0.1088 0.1067 4 25 0.7392 0.1472 0.3739 0.5536 0.7708 0.1233 0.1492 0.1466 5 0.4549 26 0.0810 0.3355 0.4896 0.4459 0.0423 0.0817 0.0785 6 0.2908 0.3643 0.2767 0.2893 27 0.4334 0.3957 0.3937 0.3880 7 0.2073 0.3502 0.4485 0.4356 28 0.2372 0.2108 0.2085 0.2059 8 0.1214 0.0980 0.1015 0.0588 29 0.1371 0.1420 0.1265 0.1374 9 0.2596 0.3593 0.3973 0.2457 0.2056 0.2035 0.4037 30 0.2016 10 0.0855 0.0379 0.0381 0.0380 31 0.3639 0.3197 0.3050 0.3103 11 0.1758 0.1817 0.1690 32 0.1711 0.1838 0.1531 0.1488 0.1504 12 0.2175 0.2053 0.2003 0.1984 33 0.3390 0.3538 0.3546 0.3390 13 0.5788 0.5978 0.6032 34 0.5955 0.0601 0.0684 0.0680 0.0680 14 0.7488 0.7402 0.7359 0.7272 35 0.2308 0.2429 0.2363 0.2363 15 0.3137 0.3621 0.3604 0.3595 36 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16 0.6076 0.6101 0.6157 0.6073 37 0.0973 0.1065 0.1048 0.1048 17 0.1516 0.1543 0.1546 0.1530 38 0.1114 0.1215 0.1194 0.1194 18 0.4102 0.4038 0.4041 0.3995 39 0.0537 0.0604 0.0599 0.0599 19 0.1633 0.1591 0.1623 0.1597 40 0.0276 0.0335 0.0350 0.0345 20 0.0612 0.0510 0.0513 41 0.0502 0.0339 0.0236 0.0285 0.0278 21 0.1050 0.0939 0.0972 0.0949 ELWC - Enhanced Loadability without compensation. ELC - Enhanced Loadability with compensation. ELPLC - Enhanced Loadability with Power Loss with compensation. ELVDC - Enhanced Loadability with Voltage Deviation with compensation

84

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

From Table 3 it was observed that, line loading under objective function of enhanced loadability with minimization of Power Loss, relieves by 10.39% and 41.15% of line no 1 and 2 respectively. Line flow through line no. 4 and 7 increases by almost double to minimize the power loss. All observations clearly indicate that SVC at Bus No.24 and TCSC at Tr. Line No. 2 with level of compensation -0.6419pu and -0.0347pu respectively under normal condition and -0.2948pu and 0.2634pu respectively under contingent condition is optimum location.

6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, first enhancement of power system loadability was calculated as an individual objective function under normal and single line contingent condition and then minimization of power loss and minimization of voltage deviation for enhanced loadability was calculated. Optimal location and level of compensation of FACTS devices for this objective function was calculated. This strategy is validated successfully on IEEE 30 bus system giving optimal location and level of compensation to enhance the power system loadability with reduced loss and minimized voltage deviation. The results are very much promising.

REFERENCES:
[1] N. Mithulananthan and S. C. Srivastava,‘Investigation of a voltage collapse incident in Sri Lankan power system network’, International Conference on Energy Management and Power Delivery ’98 (EMPD’98, Singapore), pp. 47–53 (1998). P. Didsayabutra, N. Mithulananthan and B. Eua-aroporn, ‘Static voltage stability study on Thailand power system network’, 12th international Conference on the Electric Power Supply Industry, 12th CEPSI, Pattaya, Thailand, No. 34-31 (1998). P. Kundur, J. Paserba, V. Ajjarapu, G. Andersson, A. Bose, C.A. Canizares, N. Hatziargyriou, D. Hill, A. Stankovic, C. Taylor, T. Van Cutsem, and V. Vittal, “Definition and Classification of Power System Stability,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.1387- 1401, May 2004. Arthit Sode-Yome, Nadarajah Mithulananthan and Kwang Y. Lee, “Static Voltage Stability Margin Enhancement Using STATCOM, TCSC and SSSC,” IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference & Exhibition, Asia and pacific, Dalian Chine, 2005. M. M. Farsangi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and K. Y. Lee, “Implementation of GCPSO for multi-objective VAr planning with SVC and its comparison with GA and PSO,” in Proc. 14th International Conference on Intelligence Systems Application to power Systems(ISAP2007), Taiwan, Nov., 2007. M. M. Farsangi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and K. Y. Lee, “Multi-objective VAr planning with SVC using immune algorithm and guaranteed convergence particle swarm optimization,” Proc. IFAC Symposium onPower Plants and Power System Control , Korea , Seoul, 2007. N.G. Hingorani, and L. Gyugyi, "Understanding FACTS: concepts and technology of flexible ac transmission systems," IEEE Press, NY, 1999. Y. H. Song, and A. T. Johns, “Flexible AC `transmission system (FACTS),” IEE Power and Energy Series 30, London, U.K., 1999. “FACTS application,” FACTS application task force, IEEE Power Engineering Society, 1998. “Benefits and Technology of Flexible AC Transmission System.” CIGRE Joint session 14/37/38, Paris August30- September5, 1992. IEEE facts Working Group, IEEE transmission and Distribution Committee, “FACTS Application,” IEEE publication No.96TP 116 – 0 M. Saravanan ∗, S. Mary Raja Slochanal, P. Venkatesh, J. Prince Stephen Abraham, “Application of particle swarm optimization technique for optimal location of FACTS devices considering cost of installation and system loadability”, Electric Power Systems Research, 2007, pp 276–283 M. Gitizadeh *, M. Kalantar, “A novel approach for optimum allocation of FACTS devices using multi-objective function”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 50 2009, pp 682–690

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

[13]

85

Electrical and Electronics Engineering: An International Journal (ELELIJ) Vol 2, No 4, November 2013

[14] A.R. Phadke, Manoj Fozdar, K.R. Niazi, “A new multi-objective fuzzy-GA formulation for optimal placement and sizing of shunt FACTS controller”, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol 40, 2012 pp 46–53. [15] A.E. Hammad, “Comparing the voltage control capabilities of present and future VAR compensating techniques in transmission systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.11, no.1, pp. 475- 484, Jan. 1996. [16] A.R. Phadke, Manoj Fozdar, K.R. Niazi, “A new multi-objective fuzzy-GA formulation for optimal placement and sizing of shunt FACTS controller”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy System, Volume 40, Issue 1, September 2012, Pages 46-53 [17] M. Gitizadeh, M. Kalantar, “A novel approach for optimum allocation of Facts devices using multiobjective function”, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 50, Issue 3, March 2009, Pages 682-690 [18] S.N. Singh, A.K. David, “Optimal location of FACTS devices for congestion management”, Electric Power Systems Research, Volume 58, 2001, Pages 71,-79 [19] Hadi Besharat, Seyed Abbas Taher, “Congestion management by determining optimal location of TCSC in deregulated power systems”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Volume 30, Issue 10, December 2008, Pages 563-568

AUTHORS
Biographical notes: B.P.Saoji received his Bachelor degree in Electrical Power System from Amravati University in 1989 and Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Gujarat University, India in 1992. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering at Smt. Indira Gandhi College of Engineering, Navi Mumbai, India. He is currently a Ph.D. student at Amravati University, Maharashtra, India since 2010. A. P. Vaidya obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering in 1983 and Master’s degree in Electrical Power Systems in 1993. He completed his doctoral degree from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in High Voltage Engineering in the year 2005. He is presently working as Professor, in Electrical Engineering, at Walchand College of Engineering, Sangli, Maharashtra (India). His areas of interest are Power System Analysis, Protection Systems, Microprocessor Applications and High Voltage Engineering.

86