Optimum Tuning Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) via Ant Colony

Optimization (ACO) Technique for Voltage Stability Improvement and

Loss Minimization
Zulkiffli Hamid, AP.Dr.I. Musirin
zulcromok_@hotmail.com, i_musirin@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract – Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is a II. MODELLING UPFC

FACTS device that can control the power flow in
transmission lines by injecting active and reactive voltage
components in series with the lines, using power converter
modules, based on an externally dc-link voltage. As the
power flow has been controlled, this device is capable of
minimizing the overall system losses and simultaneously
improves the voltage stability. To be able effectively control
the power flow so that losses and voltage stability are at
optimum level, UPFC parameters need to be optimally
tuned by using optimization algorithm. This paper presents
how Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) technique can be used
to tune the parameters of this FACTS device in order to
improve power system performance. ACO is a new
cooperative agent’s approach, which is inspired by the
observation of the behaviours of real ant colonies on the
topics of ant trial formation and foraging method. The
algorithm is programmed on MATLAB applied to the
IEEE-30 Bus Reliability Test System (RTS).
A UPFC can be represented in the steady-state by two
voltage sources representing fundamental components of
output voltage waveforms of the two converters and
impedances being leakage reactance of the two coupling
transformers [6,8]. However after several derivations and
simplification steps, the steady-state UPFC power
injection model can be represented as Fig. 1 [6]. From
that, we can make a model of UPFC by representing
injected sending and receiving end complex power into
numerical power system. In realizing this step, several
mathematical equations related to UPFC power injection
model needs to be used in accordance with power system,
i.e. by modifying Jacobian matrix of Newton-Raphson’s
load flow program.

Index Terms – ACO, RSA, UPFC, FVSI

I. INTRODUCTION

Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is a FACTS

device, constructed by the combination of STATCOM
and SSSC [1] that can control power flow in transmission
lines, using series connected power converter [2]. It was Fig. 1 : Steady-State UPFC Power Injection Model
introduced by Gyugiy in 1991 [3] and is believed to have
ability in improving power system performance by means As we know, the Newton-Raphson’s load flow equation
of controlling its parameters, in this case the voltage can be represented as [9]:
constant and angle [3,4]. UPFC is connected in both
series and shunt (parallel) on a transmission line of a Δ𝐏 𝐇𝐍 Δ𝛅
power system [4,5]. A mathematical model is required for = (1)
Δ𝐐 𝐉 𝐋 Δ𝐕
investigating the effects of UPFC on power system
operation. This means the physical model of UPFC Δ𝐏 : vector of active power mismatch
should be translated into numerical form so that it can be Δ𝐐 : vector of reactive power mismatch
inserted into power system data, and also can be adapted Δ𝛅 : vector of bus voltage angle deviation
with power flow program [6]. In this case, Newton- Δ𝐕 : vector of bus voltage deviation
Raphson power flow solution will be applied rather than H, N, J, L : matrices of Jacobian elements (some
other methods due to its strong convergence books used J1, J2, J3, and J4)
characteristics in providing solutions [7].
So far there is no optimization method applied to Generally, UPFC complex voltage that need to be
find the most optimum parameters that can result to the
optimized by ACO is represented by [3,6]:
most optimum power system performance. This paper
presents the combination between Random Searching
𝑉𝑠𝑒 = 𝜀𝑉𝑖 ∠𝛾° (2)
Approach (RSA) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) Where:
technique; where the RSA is used to find the parameter
ranges that will result to the lowest losses and the highest
𝜀 : UPFC voltage constant
voltage stability, and then followed by ACO to find the
𝛾 : UPFC voltage angle
most optimum parameters based on the parameter ranges
obtained from RSA.
Both of the 𝜀 and 𝛾 are the main parameters that will be 𝜕𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
optimized by ACO engine to provide optimal power 𝑁𝑗𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑉𝑖 (20)
𝜕𝑉𝑖
system performance. Equations (3) to (6) represents the 𝜕𝑄𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
UPFC power injection model need to be used for 𝐽𝑗𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (21)
𝜕𝜃𝑖
representing UPFC installation into numerical power 𝜕𝑄𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
system, whereas Equation (7) to (22) represent the partial 𝐿𝑗𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑉𝑖 (22)
derivatives of UPFC that should be used to modify the 𝜕𝑉𝑖
elements of Jacobian matrix [3,6].
Where from equations above:
𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 0.02𝜀𝑏𝑉𝑖 2 sin 𝛾 − 1.02𝜀𝑏𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 sin(𝜃𝑖 − 𝜃𝑗 + 𝛾)
(3) i,j : sending and receiving end node respectively
𝑄𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑄𝑖𝑠 = −𝜀𝑏𝑉𝑖 2 cos 𝛾 (4) 𝑃, 𝑄 : active and reactive power respectively
𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑃𝑗𝑠 = 𝜀𝑏𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 sin(𝜃𝑖 − 𝜃𝑗 + 𝛾) (5) 𝑉, 𝜃 : voltage and voltage angle respectively
𝑄𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑄𝑗𝑠 = 𝜀𝑏𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 cos(𝜃𝑖 − 𝜃𝑗 + 𝛾) (6)
The modification on load flow equation involves two
steps. Firstly, each of the Jacobian elements will be
For bus i, when i = j: modified simply by adding the original element with
UPFC partial derivative element, for e.g. 𝐻 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 =
𝜕𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 𝐻 𝑜𝑟𝑖 + 𝐻 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 [6]. Next, the vector of active and reactive
𝐻𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (7) power mismatch from Equation (1) will be modified
𝜕𝜃𝑖
𝜕𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 through equations:
𝑁𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑉𝑖 (8)
𝜕𝑉𝑖
𝜕𝑄 𝛥𝑃𝑖 = 𝑃𝑖,𝐺 − 𝑃𝑖,𝐿 + 𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 − 𝑃𝑖,𝐶𝑎𝑙 (23)
𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
𝐽𝑖𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (9) 𝛥𝑃𝑗 = 𝑃𝑗 ,𝐺 − 𝑃𝑗 ,𝐿 + 𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 − 𝑃𝑗 ,𝐶𝑎𝑙 (24)
𝜕𝜃𝑖
𝜕𝑄𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 𝛥𝑄𝑖 = 𝑄𝑖,𝐺 − 𝑄𝑖,𝐿 + 𝑄𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 − 𝑄𝑖,𝐶𝑎𝑙 (25)
𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
𝐿𝑖𝑖 = 𝑉𝑖 (10) 𝛥𝑄𝑗 = 𝑄𝑗 ,𝐺 − 𝑄𝑗 ,𝐿 + 𝑄𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 − 𝑄𝑗 ,𝐶𝑎𝑙 (26)
𝜕𝑉𝑖

when i ≠ j: where:
subscripts G, L : generator and load parameters
𝜕𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 respectively.
𝐻𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (11) subscripts Cal : calculated parameters by load flow
𝜕𝜃𝑗 program .
𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 𝜕𝑃𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
𝑁𝑖𝑗 = 𝑉𝑗 (12)
𝜕𝑉𝑗
𝜕𝑄 𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 III. RANDOM SEARCHING APPROACH (RSA)
𝐽𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (13)
𝜕𝜃𝑗
𝜕𝑄𝑖,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 RSA is a contribution method to ACO algorithm, to
𝐿𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑉𝑗 (14) ensure that ACO program will converge to optimal
𝜕𝑉𝑗
solution at very short time. Without RSA, ACO may
requires more than 30 seconds computation time to find
the most optimal UPFC parameters. This method is
For bus j, when j = i: performed by running load flow program consisting of
UPFC repeatedly, i.e. the UPFC voltage constant and
𝜕𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
𝐻𝑗𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (15) angle are selected step-by-step within the range of (0.01<
𝜕𝜃𝑗 ε < 0.1) and (0° < γ < 360°), and then send to power
𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 𝜕𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 system model . The UPFC parameters within the ranges
𝑁𝑗𝑗 = 𝑉𝑗 (16)
𝜕𝑉𝑗 that result to the lowest losses and FVSI will be converted
𝜕𝑄 𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐
to narrow ranges, which then will be used in ACO engine.
𝐽𝑗𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (17)
𝜕𝜃𝑗
𝜕𝑄𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 IV. ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION (ACO)
𝐿𝑗𝑗 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = 𝑉𝑗 (18)
𝜕𝑉𝑗 Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) was introduced by
Marco Dorigo in his Ph. D thesis in 1992 [10,11], and
when j ≠ i: was developed it in his further work with his colleagues,
as summarized in [12]. ACO algorithm is inspired by the
𝜕𝑃𝑗 ,𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 behavior of real ant colonies used to solve combinatorial
𝐻𝑗𝑖 𝑢𝑝𝑓𝑐 = (19) optimization problem. In this study, there are some
𝜕𝜃𝑖
modifications performed on the ACO algorithm in order
to make it suitable for the application in UPFC. The β : parameter, which determines the relative
algorithm was modified to solve the continuous importance of pheromone versus distance
optimization problems instead of graphical optimization (β > 0)
problems in its original philosophy [13]. The algorithm ρ : heuristically defined coefficient (0 < ρ < 1)
for UPFC optimization using ACO has been described in α : pheromone decay parameter (0 < α < 1)
Fig. 2. The process involves initialization, state transition q0 : parameter of the algorithm (0 < q0 < 1)
rule, local updating rule, fitness evaluation and global τo : initial pheromone level
updating rule [11,14].
Every parameter requires to be set for limiting the search
range in order to avoid large computation time.

dmax can be calculated using the following formula:

 n 1 
d max  max  di  (27)
 i 1 
di  r  max u  (28)
where:
r : current node
u : unvisited node
di : distance between two nodes

Step 2: Generate first node randomly; the first node will

be selected by generating a random number according to a
uniform distribution, ranging from 1 to n.

Step 3: Apply state transition rule; in this step the ant

located at node r (current node) will choose the nodes s
(next node) based on the following rule.

  
 arg max u J k ( r )  (r , u ).  (r , u ) }, if q  q0 (exp loitation )

s



S , otherwise (biased exp loration )
(29)
where:
q : random number uniformly distributed in
[0…1]
S : random variable selected according to the
probability distribution given in eq. (29)

The probability for an ant k at node r to choose the next

node s, is calculated using the following equation.

 [ (r , s)].[ (r , s)  ]
 , if s  J k ( r )
Pk (r , s)   u  J k ( r ) [ (r , u )].[ (r , u ) ]



0, otherwise
(30)
where:
Fig. 2 ACO flowchart algorithm τ : pheromone
Jk(r) : set of nodes that remain to be visited by ant
Step 1: Initialization; during the initialization process n, k positioned on node (to make the solution
m, tmax, dmax, β, ρ, α and q0 are specified. feasible)
η : 1/δ, is the inverse of the distance δ(r,s).
where:
n : no. of nodes
m : no. of ants
tmax : maximum iteration
dmax : maximum distance for every ants tour
Step 4: Apply local updating rule; while constructing a The pheromone level is updated by applying the global
solution of UPFC optimization, ants visit edges and updating rule in eq. (33).
change their pheromone level by applying the local
updating rule of eq. (31). τ(r,s) ‹— (1– α) τ(r,s)+ α.Δ τ(r,s) (33)

τ(r,s) ‹— (1 – ρ) τ(r,s)+ ρ.Δ τ(r,s) (31)

where:
ρ : heuristically defined coefficient (0 < ρ < 1)
( L ) , if (r , s)  global  best tour (34)
 1

Δ τ(r,s) = τo (r , s)   gb

0, otherwise
Step 5: Determine tuned parameters; two variables (x1, x2)
required to represent the UPFC parameters (i.e. UPFC Lgb : the length of the globally best tour from
voltage constant, 𝜀, and angle, 𝛾) and are selected within the beginning of the trial
the specified ranges from RSA method.
Step 7: End condition; the algorithms stop the iteration
Step 6: Fitness evaluation; it is performed after all ants when a maximum number of iterations have been
have completed their tours. In this step, the control performed otherwise, repeat step 3. Every tour that was
variable is computed using the following equation:- visited by ants should be evaluated. If a better path is
d discovered in the process, it will be kept for next
x  x max (32)
reference. The best path selected between all iterations
d max
where: engages the optimal scheduling solution to UPFC tuning
d : distance for every ants tour problem. The overall steps of the ACO algorithm can be
xmax : maximum x represented in the flow chart of Fig. 2.

2 14

13
4 C
15

30
12 16

18 23

20
6
10 17 19 24
5 7

C
21
29
22
27
25
11
9 28
C

26

Fig. 3: Single line diagram for IEEE 30-bus RTS

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The values of x will be assigned for UPFC parameters.
The fitness is computed by performing ac load flow
program. This program is called repeatedly into the ACO
main program for the whole process.
Step 7: Apply global updating rule; to simplify the
problem, this step is applied to edges belonging to the
best ant tour which give the best fitness among all ants.
The ACO engine was written in MATLAB used to
perform optimization process. Validation process was
conducted on IEEE 30-bus RTS. This system has 6
generator buses and 24 load buses with 41 interconnected
lines, as shown in Fig. 3. In this research, three UPFCs
are installed on power system with various locations, i.e.
on transmission line 2 to 6, 25 to 26, and 27 to 30. The
reason why the three locations were chosen is because of
their position closer to test busses. In this case the test
busses are Bus 26 and 30. Location 2 to 6 just an optional
location for installing a UPFC. It doesn’t matter if we
choose other optional location, but location 25 to 26
(149.5° < γ < 150.5°). Table 1 and 2 depicts the result
obtained by running 10 iterations ACO with power
system consisting of three UPFCs. In this table,
comparison was made between power system without
UPFC, with a single UPFC installed on location 25 to 26

Results after running ACO with objective function of FVSI

Total Bus
Test MVAR UPFC FVSI Losses Voltage ACO UPFC Parameters ε [ γ° ]
Bus Qd Location (MW) (V_bus26) Iterations
Line 2-6 Line 25-26 Line 27-30
Without UPFC 0.2271 18.279 0.934
0.0235
10 Line 25-26 0.2169 18.044 0.9559 10 [349.3476]
0.1049 0.0278 0.1033
Combination 0.1759 15.696 0.9731 10 [29.5899] [359.6774] [59.5105]
Without UPFC 0.3552 19.063 0.89
0.0635
15 Line 25-26 0.2138 18.236 0.9511 10 [358.7631]
0.1050 0.0688 0.1050
Combination 0.173 15.81 0.971 10 [29.7036] [359.9925] [30.1549]
Without UPFC 0.4976 20.339 0.838
0.0811
26 20 Line 25-26 0.2105 18.688 0.9152 10 [359.9867]
0.1050 0.0801 0.1047
Combination 0.1884 16.109 0.9426 10 [30.3643] [359.9997] [30.2719]
Without UPFC 0.6712 22.632 0.768
0.0749
25 Line 25-26 0.3244 19.966 0.847 10 [358.9885]
0.1049 0.0750 0.1048
Combination 0.286 18.621 0.8792 10 [0.1099] [359.7555] [29.9237]
Without UPFC 0.8819 26.518 0.679
0.0352
30 Line 25-26 0.7283 24.139 0.7238 10 [359.5146]
0.1049 0.0350 0.0850
Combination 0.6671 22.113 0.7652 10 [0.1749] [359.6376] [29.8949]
Without UPFC 0.8972 26.87 0.673
0.0451
30.3 Line 25-26 0.6947 23.752 0.7319 10 [359.5809]
0.1046 0.0449 0.0249
Combination 0.6349 21.842 0.7721 10 [359.8401] [359.6749] [30.0690]
Table 1 : Results for ACO with Bus 26 loaded

and 27 to 30 are compulsory. Fast Voltage Stability Index
(FVSI) which was developed by Associate Professor Dr.
Ismail Musirin [15] was used as the indicator for power
system stability. To avoid system collapse, FVSI must be
lower than unity, or should be minimized as low as
possible [15]. A method called as Maximum Loadability
Identification (MLI) [13] was first conducted to find the
most sensitive bus (the test busses for ACO program), i.e.
the bus that experienced convergence failure of load flow
program at the lowest load MVAR value. From the test
results, the most sensitive busses were 26 and 30, which
diverge at load MVAR of 30.3 and 33.3 respectively.
After performing MLI, RSA was performed to find the
most narrow ranges of UPFC parameters (𝜀, 𝛾), which
then will be used by ACO engine to perform optimization
process. For e.g. if ε = 0.07 and γ =150° result to the
lowest losses and FVSI at MVAR of 15, the best narrow
ranges for the usage of ACO are (0.065< ε < 0.075) and
for Bus 26 and on location 27 to 30 for Bus 30, and with
combination of three UPFCs. It is shown that effects of
UPFC combination in power system gives further
optimization that cannot be achieved by individual UPFC
on location 25 to 26 and 27 to 30. For e.g. looking
towards load of 30.3 MVAR from Table 1, in spite of
individual UPFC on line 25 to 26 resulted to reduced
FVSI value, the UPFC combination gives better than that,
i.e. 0.6947 is further reduced to 0.6349, which is about 9
% further reduction. Thus, system stability that was
improved before is further improved by combinational
effect. Furthermore, both of the system’s Total Losses
and Voltage Profile are well improved as well as FVSI
value, for e.g. at 30.3 MVAR, reduced losses of 23.7523
MW and improved voltage of 0.7319 p.u. by individual
UPFC on location 25 to 26 are further improved to
21.8423 MW and 0.7721 p.u. respectively by UPFC
combination.
The percentages of further improvement for losses and
voltage magnitude are approximately 8 % and 6 %
respectively.
Fig. 4 illustrates the graphical representation of FVSI
values in accordance with variation of load MVARs. By
inspection, the UPFC combination results to the most
reduction of FVSI values, which means that system
same time, system’s Total Losses and Voltage Profile
have been optimized from individually optimized values
(values optimized by individual UPFC on location 27 to
30), i.e. from 26.3244 MW and 0.629 p.u. to 24.074 MW
(9 % further reduction) and 0.6739 p.u. (7 % further
improvement) respectively.

Results after running ACO with objective function of FVSI

Total Bus
Test MVAR UPFC FVSI Losses Voltage ACO UPFC Parameters ε [ γ° ]
Bus Qd Location (MW) (V_bus30) Iterations
Line 2-6 Line 25-26 Line 27-30
Without UPFC 0.2197 18.16 0.926
0.0756
10 Line 25-26 0.2013 17.485 0.9873 10 [28.5897]
0.1048 0.0498 0.0787
Combination 0.1785 15.541 0.9983 10 [29.9761] [29.5096] [29.9607]
Without UPFC 0.2977 18.731 0.884
0.0851
15 Line 25-26 0.2182 18.056 0.933 10 [358.3256]
0.1040 0.0766 0.0815
Combination 0.1775 16.427 0.9546 10 [30.4087] [359.9507] [359.9166]
Without UPFC 0.4126 19.637 0.837
0.0956
30 20 Line 25-26 0.2167 18.393 0.8997 10 [358.9998]
0.1047 0.0945 0.1000
Combination 0.1762 16.73 0.9249 10 [30.4315] [359.9757] [359.8808]
Without UPFC 0.5515 21.274 0.771
0.1052
25 Line 25-26 0.2857 19.27 0.8429 10 [359.5763]
0.1049 0.0750 0.1049
Combination 0.2528 17.467 0.8766 10 [30.1897] [29.5450] [359.9243]
Without UPFC 0.7119 23.782 0.695
0.0849
30 Line 25-26 0.4973 21.081 0.7652 10 [0.4124]
0.1046 0.0350 0.0850
Combination 0.4512 20.393 0.8036 10 [359.8989] [29.5545] [0.4322]
Without UPFC 0.8891 28.187 0.591
0.0252
33.3 Line 25-26 0.8128 26.324 0.629 10 [358.9799]
0.0448 0.0447 0.0249
Combination 0.7542 24.074 0.6739 10 [30.0186] [30.4653] [359.6099]
Table 2 : Results for ACO with Bus 26 loaded

stability has been optimally improved beyond the Fig. 6 shows graphical view of FVSI variation in
capability of individual UPFC on location 25 to 26. accordance with load MVAR changes. From that
Moreover, UPFC combination increases the gap margin diagram, it is observed that for all values of load MVAR
(losses margin) between without and with UPFC system, levels, there exists further improvement in terms of power
i.e. the combinational involvement of UPFC provides system stability, i.e. the FVSI values has been extensively
further reduction in terms of Total Losses, and hence reduced from its individually optimized values.
simultaneously further increase the quality of power Moreover, the Total Losses also being improved beyond
transmission, as depicted in Fig. 5. the capability of individual UPFC on location 27 to 30 at
Similar observation can be deducted from Table 2, all levels of load MVARs, as shown in Fig. 7.
which represents the outputs for Bus 30. UPFC
combination still capable of producing further improved
results in terms of FVSI, Total Losses, and Voltage
Profile. Considering load of 33.3 MVAR, the FVSI that
had been reduced by individual UPFC on location 27 to
30 before is now further reduced by UPFC combination
from 0.8128 to 0.7542 (further reduction of 7 %). At the
 Fig. 4 : FVSI comparison with bus 26 loaded
Fig. 5 : Total Losses comparison with bus 26 loaded
Fig. 6 : FVSI comparison with bus 30 loaded
Fig. 7 : Total Losses comparison with bus 30 loaded
The combination between RSA and ACO methods
provides a fast convergence of ACO stochastic searching
process, i.e. up to 5 to 6 seconds for individual UPFC
performance and 10 to 16 seconds for UPFC combination
performance, as discussed in previous results. Now, this
section would like to investigate the power system
performance in terms of FVSI and Total Losses by using
singular ACO and combination between RSA and ACO.
Table 3 tabulates the results of the comparison. For this
case study, only Bus 26 was considered.
From Table 3, it is observed that for the first 25
MVAR, the combination of RSA and ACO provides a
consistent improvement to system performance in terms
of FVSI, Total Losses and computation time for both
types of objective function (FVSI and Total Losses).
However at load MVAR of 30 and above, the singular
ACO method gives the optimal improvement for system
stability (i.e. FVSI), but the required computation time
was much higher than that of combinational method (i.e.
56 seconds for 30 MVAR and 46 seconds for 30.3
MVAR). Moreover, another disadvantage of singular
ACO method is about the line losses. Despite of resulting
to optimal FVSI for load above than 25 MVAR, the line
losses is observed to be higher than that of combinational
method, i.e. about 10 % difference for both levels of load
(30 and 30.3 MVAR). Thus, in order to get optimal
selection of UPFC parameters with fast convergence
speed of simulation time, combination between ACO and
RSA need to be applied in power system for the purpose
of voltage stability improvement and loss minimization.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this study, UPFC was observed to have capability
in controlling line flow of a power system and
simultaneously enhance the quality of system
performance in terms of stability and losses. To be able
optimizing system performance, the injected complex
voltage of UPFC need to be optimally selected by
applying ACO engine, which searching stochastically the
UPFC parameters based on specified narrow ranges in
very short time, i.e. fast convergence of solution. This
study also suggest the incorporation between ACO and
RSA capable of resulting optimal power system
performance, and at the same time provide a fast speed of
solution process. It is also proved that installation with
UPFC combination has potential to provide further
improvement of system performance beyond the
capability of singular UPFC installation.
[7] C.A Camacho, E.Acha,B.Matinez "Three-Phase STATCOM
Models for Large Scale Newton-Raphson Power FLow
Study"www.ieee.org
[8] D.Menniti, A. P., Electronic, Computer and System Science
Department, University oF Calabria, Italy ""Modelling of
Unified Power Flow Controller into Power System using P-
SPice"."
[9] Saadat, H. (2004). Power System Analysis, Mc Graw Hill.

Result by using combination of UPFC

Computation Total Losses Computation
Test MVAR Method FVSI time (s) (MW) time (s) Iteration
Bus Qd [Fitness=FVSI] [Fitness=FVSI] [ Fitness=Total [ Fitness=Total
Losses ] Losses ]

Without UPFC 0.2271 18.2785

10 ACO 0.1988 52.154424 16.0874 17.45174 10
RSA + ACO 0.1759 13.010852 14.4867 16.902207 10
Without UPFC 0.3552 19.0625
15 ACO 0.203 67.974172 16.1726 21.962139 10
RSA + ACO 0.173 11.353080 14.7466 16.13514 10
Without UPFC 0.4976 20.3393
26 20 ACO 0.3221 59.370042 17.1349 22.780684 10
RSA + ACO 0.1884 11.531813 15.2294 18.866881 10
Without UPFC 0.6712 22.6325
25 ACO 0.4565 62.959975 19.3709 24.274163 10
RSA + ACO 0.286 10.561670 16.289 16.154256 10
Without UPFC 0.8819 26.5184
30 ACO 0.5524 56.439344 21.3839 28.97598 10
RSA + ACO 0.6671 11.324533 19.7928 15.172467 10
Without UPFC 0.8972 26.87
30.3 ACO 0.6156 46.209834 21.4263 27.888298 10
RSA + ACO 0.6349 10.780092 19.3656 14.994717 10

Table 3 : Comparison between singular and combinational ACO

VIII. REFERENCES
[1] N.Tambey.Prof M.L.Kothari, “Unified Power Flow
Controller (UPFC) Based Damping Controllers for Damping
Low Frequency Oscillations in a Power System”
[2] Y.Ye,M. Kazerani, Power Flow Control Schemes for Series-
Connected FACTS Controllers, Electric Power System
Research 76 (2006) 824-831
[3] Nagaraju, S. V. R. K. a. S. S. (2007). ""Loss Minimization
by Incorporation of UPFC in Load Flow Studies"."
International Journal of Electrical and Power Engineering 1
(3): pp. 321 - 327.
[4] S.E.Mubeen, R.K.Nema,G.Agnihotri, "Power FLow Control
with UPFC in Power Transmission System", World
Academy of Science, Engineering & Technology 47 2008
[5] G.Radman, R.S.Raje, "Power Flow Model/Calculation for
Power System with Multiple FACTS Controllers", Electric
Power System Research 77 (2007) 1521 - 1531
[6] Vural, M. T. a. A. M. (2004). ""Analysis and Modeling of
Unified Power Flow Controller : Modification of Newton-
Raphson Algorithm and User-Defined Modeling Approach
for Power Flow Studies"." The Arabian Journal for Science
and Engineering Volume 29(Number 2B): pp. 136 - 14
[10] Dorigo, M. (1992). " “Optimization, Learning and Natural
Algorithms”." Ph.D Thesis, Dipartimento, Politecnico di
Milano, Italy.
[11] M.R.Kalil, I. M. M., M.M Othman, T.K.A.Rahman (2009).
"Loss Minimization by Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch
Using Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) Technique."
International Journal of Power, Energy and Artificial
Intelligence.
[12] Caro, M. D. a. G. D. (1997). "“The Ant Colony Optimization
Meta-Heuristic: in D. Corne, M. Dorigo, F. Glover, editors,
New Ideas in Optimization"." McGraw-Hill: pp. 11 - 32.
[13] Khalil, M. R. (2008). "Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)
Technique for Reactive Power Planning in Power System
Stability Assessment" MSc. Thesis, Mara University of
Technology.
[14] ALLAOUA, B. G. a. B. (2009). "Ant Colony Optimization
Applied on Combinatorial Problem for Optimal Power Flow
Solution." Leonardo Journal of Sciences: pp. 1 - 17.
[15] M.R.Kalil, I. M. M., M.M Othman (2009). "Optimal
Transformer Tap Changer Setting for Voltage Stability
Improvement " International Journal of Power, Energy and
Artificial Intelligence, No. 1, Vol. 2: pp. 89 - 95.