www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 7th May 2013
Revised on 4th July 2013
Accepted on 20th August 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316

ISSN 1751-8687

Analysing the effects of different types of FACTS

devices on the steady-state performance of the
Hydro-Québec network
Esmaeil Ghahremani1, Innocent Kamwa2
1
R&D Team, OPAL-RT Technologies Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada
2
Research Institute of Hydro-Québec/IREQ, Power System and Mathematics, Varennes, QC, Canada
E-mail: esmaeil.ghahremani.1@ulaval.ca

Abstract: Hydro-Québec’s electrical transmission system is an extensive, international grid located in Québec, Canada with
extensions into the northeastern United States of America. For large power systems such as this, one of the major issues is to
maintain the steady-state performance of the network. From this point of view, flexible AC transmission system (FACTS)
devices could be effective tools to improve power system security by reducing the power flow on overloaded lines, which in
turn would result in an increased loadability of the power system, reduced transmission line losses, improved stability and
security and, ultimately, a more energy-efficient transmission system. Therefore in this study, the authors will present the
effects of different types of FACTS devices on the performance of Hydro-Québec’s power system. The optimal locations and
rating of these FACTS controllers will be determined with a view to improving network security using an optimisation
algorithm based on a genetic algorithm. The effects of six different FACTS devices including static VAR compensator
(SVC), thyristor-controlled series capacitor (TCSC), thyristor-controlled voltage regulator (TCVR), thyristor-controlled phase-
shifting transformer (TCPST), unified power flow controller (UPFC) and static synchronous compensator (STATCOM)
with energy storage are compared. Using the presented results, the effects of different types of FACTS devices on the Hydro-
Québec network will be analysed and compared with those of a STATCOM equipped with energy storage from the
viewpoints of static loadability and losses.

1 Introduction transmission system, and thus much of Québec’s population

The Hydro-Québec network, comprising of over 33 000 km
of power transmission lines, is managed by Hydro-Québec
TransÉnergie, a division of the crown corporation
Hydro-Québec. The system is unlike any other, with
electrical transmission lines that stretch more than 1000 km
from the northern hydroelectric dams and power stations of
the James Bay project and Churchill Falls to the population
centres of Montréal and Québec cities. For this purpose,
Hydro-Québec uses a voltage of AC 735 kV or 315 kV to
transmit and distribute the electrical power it produces [1].
Generation is 98% from northern hydro resources with
almost all the load of this winter-peaking grid (38 900 MW)
on 24 January 2013) concentrated in the southern part of
the province. Much of the electricity generated by
Hydro-Québec’s production facilities comes from 60
hydroelectric plants, most of them located in the north, far
from load centres such as Montréal. Major expansion of the
network began with the commissioning of an
alternating-current (AC) 735-kV power line in November
1965 to meet the need to transmit electricity over vast
distances from the hydroelectric power stations in
northwestern Québec and Labrador to southern Québec [1,
2]. The 735-kV power lines form the backbone of the entire
is supplied by a handful of 735-kV power lines. However,
long lines require extensive control to maximise the transfer
capability and maintain system integrity. Hydro-Québec has
therefore started to use power grid control components such
as large synchronous condensers (in the early 1970s) and
FACTS devices such as static compensators (in the early
1980s) and series compensation (in early 1990s) [2].
FACTS devices improve power network efficiency by
re-dispatching the power flow on the transmission lines in
such a way that the thermal limits are not exceeded, while
fulfilling contractual requirements between grid stakeholders
and increasing system loadability [3]. From the steady-state
point of view, FACTS devices operate by supplying or
absorbing reactive power, increasing or reducing voltage
and controlling the series impedance of transmission lines
or phase angle [4]. However, the benefits of FACTS
devices are dependent on their type, size, number and
location in the transmission system [5]. There are several
approaches, heuristic or analytical methods, to find the
optimal locations for the given FACTS devices in the
power system such as genetic algorithm (GA) [6–10], Tabu
search (TS) [11, 12], simulated annealing (SA) [12],
particle swarm optimisation (PSO) [13–15] and
evolutionary algorithm (EA) [16–19].

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249 233
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
In this paper, the optimal allocation of FACTS devices will process is developed in steady-state conditions, the
be developed using an optimisation process based on the GA to modelling of the STATCOM and SVCs will be the same
find the optimal locations and values of a given number of [20, 21].
FACTS devices in the Hydro-Québec network in order to Each of the above six FACTS devices has its own
maximise the power system loadability [20, 21]. Using the properties and could be used for a specific goal [22]. The
optimisation process presented in this paper, we will analyse simplified models of SVC, TCVR, TCPST, TCSC and
and compare the effect of six different FACTS devices on UPFC, presented in [20], will be used for our power flow
the steady-state performance of the Hydro-Québec network. calculations in Matpower [23]. The modelling of the
We will then assess the steady-state effect (if any) of STATCOM associated with energy storage superconducting
including storage in the FACTS devices, namely the static magnetic energy storage (SMES) (Fig. 1f ) is described
synchronous compensator (STATCOM). A key contribution briefly as follows.
is the study of the potential effects of a FACTS device with The symbol and the model of STATCOM with SMES are
storage on a network’s steady-state performance. also presented in Figs. 2a and b, respectively. The model of
The paper is organised as follows. A general description of STATCOM with SMES consists of two parts: a variable
FACTS devices and the optimisation process is given in inductance for absorbing or producing reactive power
Sections 2 and 3, respectively. The optimal allocation of one
and two static VAR compensators (SVCs) in the
Hydro-Québec network is presented in Sections 4 and 5. The
effects of different numbers of SVCs are analysed in Section
6. Section 7 discusses the effects of energy storage devices
on network performance. Section 8 presents the results of the
allocation process for other types of FACTS devices such as
unified power flow controller (UPFC), thyristor-controlled
voltage regulator (TCVR), thyristor-controlled phase-shifting
transformer (TCPST) and thyristor-controlled series capacitor
(TCSC). Section 9 discusses the results, whereas Section 10,
finally, concludes the paper.

2 FACTS devices
Fig. 2 STATCOM with SMES device
The allocation process will be conducted for six different a Symbol
FACTS devices as presented in Fig. 1. Since our allocation b Simplified model

Fig. 1 FACTS devices

a SVC
b TCVR
c TCSC
d TCPST
e UPFC
f STATCOM with energy storage

234 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
 www.ietdl.org
( −rSMES) for modelling the active-power production and
positive resistance ( + rSMES) for modelling the active-power
consumption.
The STATCOM with SMES is a device that could be
installed in the network buses in addition to the branches. If
the allocation process inserts the device in the buses, in this
case the device is modelled only as reactive and active
power injected at the bus as presented in Fig. 3.
The reactive power injected or absorbed by the STATCOM
part at a voltage of 1 pu (rated system voltage) could change
between the following values

− 300 ≤ QSVC ≤ 300 MVar (1)

Fig. 3 Equivalent injected active and reactive power for modelling
the STATCOM with SMES device Also, the range of SMES part for injected (produced) or
absorbed active power are

(STATCOM part) and a variable resistance for absorbing or − 300 ≤ PSMES ≤ +300 MW (2)
producing the active power (SMES part). The SMES
resistance has two operating modes: negative resistance Inserting the STATCOM with SMES in the branches changes

Fig. 4 Effects of PSMES and QSTATCOM on branch parameters

a y′kk = y′ii and b′c
b rik′ , x′ik

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249 235
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
the parameters of the classic equivalent π-model. The
influence of PSMES and QSTATCOM with the above-
mentioned ranges on the modified parameters of a branch
such as line resistance, x′ik line inductance, y′kk = y′ii line
admittance and b′c susceptance can be seen in Fig. 4. For
example, it may be observed that, by increasing the value
of QSTATCOM in capacitive mode in Fig. 4a, the value of b′c
increases. Taking another example, in Fig. 4b, it is shown
that in the absorption mode of SMES ( + PSMES) in the
network the value of rik′ decreases whereas in production
mode ( − PSMES) the value of rik′ increases.
3 Optimisation process
3.1 Genetic algorithm
The GA is a kind of stochastic method for solving both
constrained and unconstrained optimisation problems based
on the mechanism of natural selection. The GA repeatedly
modifies a population of individual solutions. At each step,
some individuals are randomly selected from the current
population to be parents for the next generation. Over
successive generations, the population evolves towards an
optimal solution [24, 25].
The GA begins by creating a random initial population. To
take an example, assume the two individuals in Fig. 5a as an
initial population. The algorithm then creates a sequence of
new populations. This is done by ranking the members of
the current population according to their fitness values.
Some of the individuals in the current population that have
the best fitness value are chosen as elite children. These
elite individuals are passed on to the next population. In
addition to elite children, there are two other methods for
generating a new child population: mutation and crossover.
Mutation children are generated by randomly changing the
genes of a single individual parent (see Fig. 5b) and the
crossover children created by combining pairs of parents in
the current population as the third type of children (see
Fig. 5c).
Finally, the current population will be replaced with
selected children to form the next generation. The algorithm
Fig. 5 GA begins by creating a random initial population
a Original individuals
b Mutation on each single individual
c Crossover between two original individuals
236
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
stops when one of the stopping criteria such as the number
of generations, time limit and fitness limit, is met [24, 25].
3.2 Objective function of the optimisation process
The goal of our optimisation process is to maximise system
loadability (transmitted power) on the network without any
bus voltage violation or branch loading.
To achieve this objective, the load factor (λ) of the network
will be increased in an iterative optimisation process as
follows. At initial condition λ is equal to 1 (λ0 = 1).
First of all, the generating powers in generation buses (PG
buses) are modified as in the following equation
PGi = l PG0i (3)
where PG0i is the initial power generation at bus i and PGi is
the modified power generation.
Then, for the load buses (PQ buses) the active and reactive
demands (PL and QL) are modified as the following equations
PLi = lPL0i
(4)
QLi = lQL0i
where PL0i and QL0i are the initial active and reactive load
power at bus i and PLi and QLi are the modified values.
At each iteration, according to (3) and (4), the load factor is
increased and the optimisation constraints, which are bus
voltage violation and branch loading, are verified. When it
is no longer possible to satisfy the constraints, it is
concluded that the maximum loadability has been reached.
This is, in fact, a multi-stage greedy algorithm that follows
the solving heuristic of making the locally optimal choice at
each stage in the hope of finding a global optimum. On
some problems, a greedy sequential strategy need not
produce an optimal solution, but nonetheless, a greedy
heuristic may yield locally optimal solutions that
approximate a global optimal solution.
The corresponding objective function which maximises the
power system loadability (λ) could be formalised as follows
J = Max{l} (5)
Subject to the following security constraints
Sl ≤ Slmax : for all branches of the network (6)




DV
≤ 0.05: for all buses of the network (7)
bi
min
Pgi ≤ Pgi ≤ Pgi
max
: for all generation buses (8)
where Slmax is the maximum value for apparent power of the
line l, Sl is the current apparent power of the line l and ΔVbi is
the difference between the nominal voltage at bus i and the
min max
current voltage, Pgi is the generation at bus i, Pgi and Pgi
are the minimum and maximum bounds on Pgi, respectively.
To simplify enforcement of the process constraints while
placing FACTS at random locations, let us define a fitness
function (Fit) to include two terms targeting separately,
branch overloading (OVL) and second term is related to bus
voltage violations (VLB)
 
 
Fit = 2 − OVLLine + VLBBus (9)
Line Bus
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
 www.ietdl.org
with Table 1 FACTS device properties: specific code, number of
variables, variable names and possible location
⎧
⎨ 1; if Sl ≤ Sl max Code FACTS Number of Variables Installation


 device variable on
OVLl =
S

⎩ exp m1

1 − l

; if Sl . Sl max
Si max 1 SVC 1 QSVC bus/line



(STATCOM)
1; if
DVbi
≤ 0.05 2 TCSC (SSSC) 1 XTCSC line
VBLi = 



3
exp m2
0.05 − DVbi
; if
DVbi
≥ 0.05
(10)
where Slmax, Sl and ΔVbi were defined in (6)–(8) and the
parameters μ1 and μ2 are constant coefficients.
This means that, if the constraints are fulfilled, each term of
the fitness function in (10) (OVL and VBL) will be equal to 1
and the value of the Fit in (9) will be equal to zero. On the
other hand, if the constraints are not met, the above-defined
fitness function penalises the overloaded branches and over-
or under-voltage buses.
3.3 Optimisation approach
The optimisation process implemented to find the maximum
loading factor λmax (maximum system loadability) could be
presented as follows [20]:
Step 1: Initialise λ0 = 1. Select the number and types of
FACTS devices and build the GA individual structure.
Then, based on the individual structure, create the initial
population of the GA.
The GA individual is built based on FACTS types, FACTS
locations and FACTS values as presented in Fig. 6. As shown
in Table 1, for each type of FACTS devices there are a
number of variables and a specific code, namely: 1 for
SVC, 2 for TCSC, 3 for TCVR, 4 for TCPST, 5 for UPFC
and 6 for STATCOM with SMES. The possible number of
Fig. 6 Typical example of an individual of multi-type FACTS device allocation
a Without UPFC and STATCOM with SMES
b Including just UPFC
c Including both UPFC and STATCOM with SMES
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
TCVR 1 kTCVR line
4 TCPST 1 δTCPST line
5 UPFC 3 VSE, ISE and bus with
ΦSE adjoining line
6 STATCOM 2 QSTATCOM, bus/line
with SMES PSMES
locations for each FACTS device is related firstly to the
bus/line installation and secondly to the selected test network.
Three typical individuals for GA optimisation process are
presented in Fig. 6. As is apparent from Fig. 6, the first part
of each individual’s string is related to the FACTS type. In
the examples of Fig. 6, since we have five FACTS devices
(nFACTS = 5), the FACTS types slot shown in the
individual’s string has five columns. The number of total
columns of each individual’s (nindividual ) string could be
calculated by nindividual = 3nFACTS + 2nUPFC + nSMES.
The second slot of each individual’s string corresponds to
the locations associated with the first slot in the string. Each
specific FACTS device has its own location. Repeated
locations are not allowed in the optimisation process and
each line or bus should appear only once in the string. In
GA implementation, the upper and lower limit of locations
should be determined. This is related to test network and
FACTS type. For example, in IEEE 14-bus test system with
14 bus and 20 lines; there are 14 possible locations for a
TCSC for installation and 34 (20 + 14) possible locations
for SVC.
The third and last part of the individual’s string includes the
rating values of the FACTS devices, which are normalised
between 0 and 1 with 0 corresponding to the minimum
237
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
value of the device and 1 to the maximum. To use these
normalised values in the power flow calculations, we need
to convert them to physical real values of the device as
follows [5]
factor for which there is no individual with a Fit equal to
zero. This means that at this load factor, there is no
configuration of FACTS device which can bring the
network voltage level and loading constraints into
 
vreal = vmin + vmax − vmin vnormalised (11)
where vmin and vmax are the minimum and maximum values
for each specific device. For example, STATCOM with
SMES device these values were presented in (1) and (2).
Step 2: Increase λ = λ + 0.1, create an initial population of GA
and then verify the constraint satisfaction for each individual
by means of the Fit presented in (9). The optimisation
algorithm (GA) randomly selects the locations and values
for all given FACTS devices after setting them into the
power system at each generation. The Fit is then calculated
for each individual. If the constraints are met, the value of
the Fit in (9) will be equal to 0; otherwise it will be greater
than 0. Based on the Fit value, the GA performs the GA
operations such as elite generation, mutation and crossover
for creating the next generation.
Step 3: If there is any individual with Fit = 0, it means that at
current load factor (λ) we have a configuration that satisfies
the security constraints and as a result we should increase
the load factor. This loop continues until we reach a load
Fig. 7 Overall plan of Hydro-Québec network
238
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
acceptable ranges. At this point, we should report the
previous load factor corresponding to maximum load factor
(λmax) and previous individual with zero value of (Fit)
which includes optimal locations and values of selected
FACTS device.
In summary, global optimisation (5) is a complex, possibly
untrackable problem which is converted into several simpler
sequential optimisation problems. In fact, global problem
solving requires a continuation optimal power flow (OPF)
to find the objective function whereas greedy problem
solving only relies on ordinary power flows to enforce
security constraints (6)–(8) at each stress level. The pitfall is
that there is no guaranty of global optimum, only the
certainty to obtain one solution, at a given stress level.
4 One SVC allocation in the Hydro-Québec
network
The Hydro-Québec network has 884 buses and 650 branches.
The MatPower format of this network, which was used for the
power flow calculations, was obtained from the PSS/E
version of the network dated 29 January 2010. The total
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316

load of this network is 33 654 MW and the total power
production is 35 474 MW. An overall view of the
Hydro-Québec network is schematised in Fig. 7.
Using the optimisation process described in the previous
section, the allocation process for one SVC in the
Hydro-Québec network is developed and the following
results, presented in Table 2, are obtained. As can be seen
from this table, for the Hydro-Québec network, with one
SVC of − 592.248 MVar allocated in bus number 10
www.ietdl.org
(BCV315), which is located in Boucherville (see Fig. 7) on
the South Shore of Montréal, the maximum load factor was
determined as λmax = 1.024. This means that, with one SVC
having the above-mentioned capacity, we would have 2.4%
improvement in system loadability, which is equal to
(33 654 × 0.024 = ) 807.69 MW.
For each network, there is a load threshold factor (λLRI)
(LRI: loss reduction improvement) above which we observe
a reduction in transmission line losses. For one SVC

Table 2 Allocation and effects of one SVC on the Hydro-Québec network

Network test system FACTS devices Values and locations λmax Loss reduction
λLRI
Location Name Value, MVar Loadability λ Reduction
Region improvement, %

Hydro-Québec SVC Bus 10 BCV315 − 592.24 1.024 0.90 1.000 16 MW (0.047%)

LSERiveSud 2.4 1.024 26.5 MW (0.071%)

Fig. 8 Comparison of voltage magnitudes of all buses in the Hydro-Québec network at maximum load factor λmax = 1.024

Fig. 9 Comparison of voltage magnitudes of all buses in the Hydro-Québec network at another selected load factor λ = 1.08

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249 239
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
allocated in the network, the value of λLRI is determined as
equal to 0.90 (λLRI = 0.90). From Table 2, it can be seen
that for the initial condition with λ = 1.00 we have 16 MW
(0.047%) loss reduction in the network whereas at
maximum load factor (λmax = 1.02) there is 26.5 MW
(0.071%) loss reduction in the network.
The bus voltages for the networks with and without
FACTS devices for two load factors λmax = 1.024 and λ =
1.08 are presented in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. As is clear
from these plots, under the same loadability conditions, the
network without FACTS devices has a greater voltage drop
on the buses, confirming the significant influence of FACTS
devices on keeping the bus voltage in the acceptable ranges.
It is an effective demonstration of the significant influence
of FACTS devices (here SVC) on keeping the steady-state
voltage of buses in the acceptable ranges. The ‘nominal bus
voltages’ curve in Figs. 8 and 9 corresponds to the voltage
profile without FACTS device at λ = 1.
To show how far the result of the allocation for one SVC is
acceptable, let us compare the effects of the allocated SVC
with the two most recent SVC locations determined by
Hydro-Québec experts. These locations are near the
Montréal area at Chénier (bus 23:CHE315) and
Bout-de-l’Ile (bus 51:BDL315) with ratings of −600 MVar
for each. The number 315 refers to the nominal voltage of
the local buses. Generally, the previous SVCs in Montréal
are installed to solve long term voltage stability problems to
increase the load of the network without risk of voltage
collapse after a line outage around Montréal. However, we
have compared those already installed SVCs with our
allocated SVC in terms of loadability improvement which
means that, the location of the SVC is fixed on a specific
location (here the location of previously installed SVCs)
and the size is set to −592 MVar. Then, the comparison is
done in terms of loadability improvement between the SVC
installed physically in the network and an SVC allocated by
the GA as given in Table 3. As can be seen from this table,
the influence of the current SVCs at buses 23 and 51
physically installed at Chénier or planned at Bout-de-l’Ile in
the Hydro-Québec network is very much the same and
similar to the results of the SVC at bus 10. Although the
maximum loadability for real SVCs is λmax = 1.022 and

Table 3 Comparison between real installed SVCs on the Hydro-Québec network with SVCs allocated by the optimisation method
No. Network test FACTS Values and locations λmax Voltage Loss reduction
system device deviations
λLRI
Location Name Value, Loadability λ Abs. λ Reduction
MVar Improvment, % value
Region

1 Hydro-Québec SVC Bus 10 BCV315 −592.248 1.024 0.90 1.024 1.074 1.000 16 MW
(paper (0.047%)
result) LSERiveSud 2.4 1.080 4.949 1.024 26.5 MW
(0.071%)
2 Hydro-Québec SVC Bus 51 BDL315 −592.248 1.022 0.90 1.022 1.034 1.000 14 MW
(physically (0.041%)
installed) LSEMontreal 2.2 1.080 4.814 1.024 24.5 MW
(0.072%)
3 Hydro-Québec SVC Bus 23 CHE315 −592.248 1.023 0.85 1.023 0.940 1.000 21 MW
(physically (0.047%)
installed) LSELaval 2.3 1.080 3.812 1.024 33.5 MW
(0.1%)

Fig. 10 Comparison of the stress level for voltage collapse in the network with and without FACTS at λ = 1.09 the voltage collapse occurs just
for the network without FACTS devices (SVC)

240 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316

Fig. 11 Comparison of the stress level for voltage collapse in the network with and without FACTS at λ = 1.11 the voltage collapse occurs for
both conditions: the network with and without SVC device
λmax = 1.023, for the selected SVC at bus 10, this value is
λmax = 1.024. We have similar results also on λLRI values
and loss-reduction improvements.
The results presented in Table 3 show that the location and
value obtained by the presented optimisation process are near
to the case set in reality to find a suitable location for an SVC
of approximately −600 MVar near a big load such as
Montréal where we already had the same size of SVC
physically installed. We repeated this optimisation (one
SVC device) several times from various initial conditions
and in all of them the optimal location was determined in
the area around Montréal.
As mentioned before, the objective function of the
optimisation process is to maximise the power system
loadability. Considering a V − P graph of a load bus
(PQ-bus) in CPF analysis, an increase in the load of a
PQ-bus would reduce the voltage of that bus until the
critical point is reached, which shows the bus voltage
collapse. Using the same methodology, we made a similar
study of the Hydro-Québec network in which, instead of
increasing the load of one specific bus, we increased the
load of all buses while monitoring the voltage level of the
entire network. Using this method, we were able to
determine the loading level at which the network with and
without FACTS devices would collapse. The results are
illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11.
It is clear in Fig. 10 that λ = 1.09 is the critical load factor
for the network without a FACTS device (here one SVC).
This means that, when the loading of the network is equal
Table 4 Allocation and effects of Two SVCs on the Hydro-Québec network
Network test system FACTS devices Values and locations
Location Name
Region
Hydro-Québec SVC Bus 11 DUV315
LSELaval
SVC Bus 552 DSOUR1
LSEMontreal
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
www.ietdl.org
to λ = 1.09, we have voltage collapse in the network
without FACTS and the network with FACTS devices (one
SVC) remains stable. However, the scenario for a load
factor equal to λ = 1.11 is quite different. As may be
observed in Fig. 11, at this stress level (λ = 1.11) the
network will collapse in both conditions: with and without
an SVC device.
We can therefore conclude that the network with one SVC,
allocated near the Montréal area, would have better
steady-state stability against an increase in the loading level
of the network. According to the allocation results, we
would have 2.4% loadability improvement in the network
with one SVC. In the results of the graphs presented in
Figs. 10 and 11, the loadability improvement is equal to 2%
(Δλ = 1.11–1.09 = 0.02), which, as expected, is close to the
allocation result (2.4%).
5 Two SVCs allocated in the Hydro-Québec
network
We repeated the allocation process for two SVCs on the
Hydro-Québec network. The optimal locations, regions and
values and also the effects of two SVCs on loadability and
loss reduction are presented in Table 4.
As can be seen from this table, for the Hydro-Québec
network, with two SVCs with the size of −581 and −538
MVar allocated to bus number 11 (DUV315) in the area of
Laval (a suburb of Montréal) and DSOUR1 in the Montréal
λmax Loss reduction
Value, MVar Loadability, % λLRI λ Reduction
− 581.530 1.033 0.88 1.000 26 MW
(0.077%)
− 538.075 3.3 1.033 49 MW
1110 MW (0.15%)
241
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 12 Comparison of voltage magnitudes of all buses in the Hydro-Québec network at maximum load factor λmax = 1.033
region, the maximum load factor was determined as
λmax = 1.033.
This means that, with two SVCs having the
above-mentioned capacity, we have 3.3% improvement in
the system loadability, which is equal to (33 654 × 0.033 = )
1110 MW. The bus voltages for the network with and
without SVC devices at the maximum load factor λmax =
1.033 are presented in Figs. 12 and 13.
Similar to the previous section, we again compare the
results obtained for two SVCs with the effects of two SVC
locations determined by Hydro-Québec experts. The results
are presented in Table 5 where it can be seen that the
influence of the actual SVCs on buses 23 and 51 physically
installed at Chénier and Bout-de-l’Ile in the Hydro-
Québec network is similar to the results of the allocated
SVCs at buses 11 and 552. Although the maximum
loadability for a real group of SVCs is λmax = 1.032, for the
Fig. 13 Comparison of voltage magnitudes of all buses in the Hydro-Québec network at another selected load factor λ = 1.08
242
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
allocated SVCs this value is λmax = 1.033, that is, nearly the
same.
The influence of a two-SVCs group on the total loss
reduction is shown in Table 5 as well. The value of λLRI is
determined as 0.88 (λLRI = 0.88). Under initial conditions
with λ = 1.00, we would have a 26 MW (0.077%) loss
reduction in the network whereas at maximum load factor
(λmax = 1.033) we have 49 MW (0.15%) loss reduction.
If a loss reduction of 26 MW can be sustained throughout
the year (average value), it will have the same price as the
transfer capacity, which has a price of about $80 /kW a year
in the Hydro-Québec system. This means about $2.08 M of
additional revenue a year could possibly be saved by
properly locating the SVC, which is also serving other
network functions. A 300 MVA SVC in Montréal area
typically increases the voltage stability limit by 400 MW on
the south interface which is voltage stability limited.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
 www.ietdl.org
Table 5 Comparison between allocation and effects of two SVCs on the Hydro-Québec network
Type FACTS Values and locations λmax Voltage Loss reduction
devices deviations

Location Name Value, Loadability λlRI λ Abs. λ Reduction

Region MVar Improvment, % value

Paper SVC Bus 552 DSOUR1 −538.07 1.033 0.88 1.024 0.84 1.000 26 MW
result (LSEMontreal) (0.077%)
SVC Bus 11 DUV315 −581.530 3.3 1.080 2.512 1.033 49 MW
(LSELaval) (0.15%)
Actual SVC Bus 51 BDL315 −538.075 1.032 0.88 1.024 0.84 1.000 30 MW
(LSEMontreal) (0.047%)
SVC Bus 23 CHE315 −581.530 3.2 1.024 2.139 1.032 48 MW
(LSELaval) (0.14%)

6 Comparing the effects of different number
of SVCs on the Hydro-Québec network
In this section, by repeating similar simulations as those in
previous sections, the effects of different number of SVCs
on the Hydro-Québec network are analysed and compared.
The comparison between different number of SVCs for
power system loadability is presented in Fig. 14a where it
can be seen that by inserting three, four or five compared
with two SVCs, there is no significant improvement in
system loadability. Therefore two is the optimum number of
SVCs for the Hydro-Québec network.

Fig. 14 Comparing the influence of different numbers of SVCs on

a Maximising power system loadability λmax
b Reduction of total voltage deviation (TVD)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249 243
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 15 Comparing the influence of different numbers of SVCs on
a Loss reduction of transmission lines at initial load factor λ = 1.00
b Loss reduction of transmission lines at maximum load factor λmax
The improvement in the reduction of voltage deviation at
maximum loadability condition is also presented in
Fig. 14b, from which it is clear that, by increasing the
number of SVCs, there would be more reductions in the
voltage deviation of buses. Also, Figs. 15a and b present
the effect of different number of SVCs on the loss
reduction of transmission lines. Specifically, Fig. 15b shows
the loss reduction for an initial load factor λ = 1.00, whereas
Fig. 15b shows the same variable at maximum load factor.
As observed for system loadability, considering also the
loss reduction of transmission lines, the optimum number of
SVCs in the Hydro-Québec network is two.
7 Analysing the effects of STATCOM with
energy storage in the Hydro-Québec network
To understand the effect of a SMES in a better manner
(associated with STATCOM), we compare this device with
244
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
a STATCOM without storage. Since our entire optimisation
process is conducted with the power system in steady-state
condition, the modelling of the STATCOM is the same as
that of an SVC. The analyses for a single STATCOM
without storage and one STATCOM with SMES were
performed for the Hydro-Québec network and for other
IEEE test systems. The results, presented in Table 6, show
quite clearly that, in the Hydro-Québec network when the
STATCOM is associated with energy storage devices
(SMES), there is not more improvement in loss reduction
whereas the values for the maximum load factor are the
same for both devices.
For other IEEE test systems, the results are a little different.
For example, in the 57-bus test system, with just one
STATCOM we have 11% improvement in system
loadability however, with one STATCOM associated with
SMES this rate is 14%.
For the 300-bus test system, though we have λmax = 1.05
with one STATCOM alone, for one STATCOM associated
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
 Table 6 Comparison between the STATCOM with SMES device and a STATCOM alone in different power networks

doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
Network test One STATCOM One STATCOM with SMES
system
Location Value, λmax Voltage Loss reduction Location Value λmax Voltage Loss reduction
MVar deviations deviations
λlRI
Loadabilily λ Abs. λ Reduction Loadability λlRI λ Abs. λ Reduction
Improvment, % value Improvment, % value

9 Bus Bus 4 −130.145 1.45 1.05 1.45 0.005 1.40 0.4 MW Bus 9 −62.540 1.49 0.4 1.49 0.003 3.40 1.5 MW
45 MVar 49
1.80 0.011 1.80 1.5 MW −175.808 1.80 0.010 1.80 4 MW

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249

MW
24 Bus Bus 10 −205.117 1.20 1.03 1.20 0.029 1.20 1 MW Branch 2 −187.540 1.34 1.00 1.34 0.032 1.20 0.1 MW
20 MVar 34
1.70 0.077 1.60 6 MW −86.808 1.70 0.055 1.60 1 MW
MW
30 Bus Bus 6 −111.443 1.32 1.64 1.32 0.015 1.90 0.31 MW Bus 6 −69.548 1.35 0.34 1.35 0.015 1.00 0.5 MW
32 MVar 35
1.90 0.029 2.00 0.50 MW −152.687 1.90 0.032 2.00 2.5 MW
MW
57 Bus Bus 18 −86.872 1.11 0.43 111 0.031 1.00 3 MW Bus 38 −67.528 1.14 0.10 1.14 0.028 1 00 12 MW
11 MVar 14
1.20 0.038 1.40 14 MW −34.575 120 0.037 1 40 29 MW
MW
300 Bus Bus 266 −283.767 1.05 0.88 1.05 0.047 1.00 2 MW Bus 140 −74.299 1.10 1.08 1.10 0.113 1.20 4 MW
5 MVar 10
1.20 0.133 1.20 9 MW −63.039 1.20 0.334 1.30 10 MW
MW
Hydro-Quebec Bus 10 −592.248 1.024 0.90 1.024 1.074 1.000 16 MW Bus 538 −531.103 1.024 0.90 1.024 1.097 1.000 13 MW
2.4 (0.047%) MVar 2.4 (0.038%)
807 MW 807 MW
1.080 4.949 1.024 27 MW −208.371 1.080 4.722 1.024 23 MW
(0.071%) MW (0.068%)
www.ietdl.org

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014

245
www.ietdl.org
with SMES this value is λmax = 1.10. Using the results of this
table we could conclude that, generally speaking, using
energy storage devices (SMES) with STATCOM could
result in greater loss reduction and greater loadability
improvement.
8 Analysing the effects of different type of
FACTS devices on the Hydro-Québec network
This section describes the effects of different types of FACTS
devices, comparing one and two devices for each of them, on
the Hydro-Québec network. These simulations were
performed to analyse the effects of different FACTS
devices on system loadability and loss reduction.
For example, comparisons of the effects of different
FACTS devices on maximising the power system
loadability are presented in Fig. 16a. As is clear from this
figure, allocating one UPFC results in a maximum load
factor of lUPFC
max = 1.028, whereas for the SVC, it results in
Fig. 16 Comparing the influence of different type of FACTS devices on
a Maximising power system loadability λmax
b Reduction of TVD
246
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
lSVC
max = 1.024. The TCPST has less effect on maximising
the system loadability compared with other FACTS devices.
Comparisons of the influences of different type of FACTS
devices on the voltage deviation reduction at maximum load
factor λmax, are also presented in Fig. 16b where it can be seen
that one UPFC and one TCVR are the most effective devices
for reducing the voltage deviation of buses.
The effects of different types of FACTS devices on the
loss reduction of transmission lines are presented in
Figs. 17a and b. Fig. 17a shows the loss reduction at
initial load factor λ = 1.00, whereas Fig. 17b shows the
same objective at maximum load factor λmax. As is clear
from this figure, considering the loss reduction, a UPFC
is the most effective device, which must be related to the
fact that the UPFC device actually consists of both shunt
and series FACTS devices.
Using the same results presented in Figs. 16 and 17, we can
present as well the comparison between two devices of
different types of FACTS (i.e. 2 SVCs against 2 UPFCs).
We will then be in a position to compare the effects of
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316

Fig. 17 Comparing the influence of different type of FACTS devices on
a Loss reduction of transmission lines at initial load factor λ = 1
b Loss reduction of transmission lines at maximum load factor λmax
different FACTS devices (with two units) on the steady-state
performance of the Hydro-Québec network.
As is clear from Fig. 16a, the maximum load factor with
two UPFCs allocated is l2max UPFC
= 1.036, whereas for the
two SVCs it is l2max SVC
= 1.033. It is interesting that by
increasing the number of TCPSTs from one to two, there
is no improvement in the power system loadability. The
graph related to the reduction of voltage deviation at
maximum load factor is presented in Fig. 16b. We could
also mention that by increasing the number of UPFCs
from one to two, there is no improvement in the
reduction of losses in transmission lines. Finally, as
observed in Figs. 17a and b, the TCVR offers the greatest
improvement in loss reduction by increasing the number
of devices from one to two. Considering the loss
reduction, there is no difference between one or two
devices for TCPST as shown in Figs. 17a and b. Using
the optimisation process presented here, these analyses
could be repeated for three, four or five units of each
device, as was done for the SVC in the paper.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
www.ietdl.org
9 Discussion
We have identified several research papers aiming at quantifying
the benefits, in terms of monetary values, of FACTS devices
when used in deregulated electricity market for congestion
management [26–28]. For example, in [28], using an OPF and
GA-based optimisation procedure, different types of FACTS
devices are optimally placed in a multi-machine power system
to reduce the overall costs of power generation. The placement
methodology considers simultaneously the cost of generating
active and reactive powers and acquisition cost of selected
FACTS devices for a range of operating conditions. The net
present value (NPV) method is used to assess the economic
value of the proposed methodology. The NPV is an
engineering economy method to analyse between long-term
benefits of a project (here FACTS installation on the network)
against the initial cost of that project [28].
In this paper, our goal was not to perform an
investment-based planning study but rather to establish
some basic locations for FACTS to maximise loadability
247
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
while hopefully minimising losses and comparing the effects
of different FACTS on this goal. Once a good location is
found, a systematic planning study with monetary inputs
can be conducted to compare a FACTS solution with
alternatives (lines, power plant and other equipment
upgrades) and further investigate the economic savings
resulting from the use of FACTS devices. For example, the
price of an SVC installed in the Hydro-Québec network is
typically from 50 to 80 M$ CAD. As we mentioned before,
with a brief calculation based on our results in this paper, if
a loss reduction of 26 MW can be sustained throughout the
year (average value), it will have the same price as the
transfer capacity, which has a price of about $80/kW a year
in the Hydro-Québec system. This means about $2.08 M of
additional revenue a year could possibly be saved by
properly locating the SVC, which is also serving other
network functions. As a result, similar to the methods used
in [26–28] other investigation could be conducted to find
out the long-term benefit of installing a FACTS device (e.g.
SVC) by maximising loadability and/or minimising losses
against the payment for the initial cost of that device.
Regarding the reason of choosing GA as an optimisation
algorithm in our FACTS placement study, let us recall that
in Section 1 of this paper, there are two main approaches
for optimal allocation of FACTS devices in power
networks: heuristic methods and analytical methods.
However, since the objective function of our optimisation
process is complex, multi-layer and un-trackable with no
direct algebraic function for the optimal problem, it is not
practical to solve it using classic analytical methods which
often rely on derivatives of the objective function such as
line flow index (LFI) [29–31], the extended voltage phasors
approach (EVPA) [32], mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) [33–35]. In fact, to solve such a hard optimisation
problem, heuristic derivative-free methods are more
efficient. Among them, we have chosen GA.
In [12], three different heuristic algorithms (GA, TS and SA)
have been used for optimal allocation of FACTS devices and it
was shown that the GA converged faster than TS and SA. Other
attempts have been made to compare GA and PSO. For
example, in [36], it is shown that in terms of computational
effort, the GA approach is faster, although it should be noted
that both algorithms took what was then considered an
unacceptably long time to determine their results. Also, the
GA seems to arrive at its final parameter values in fewer
generations than the PSO [36]. In addition, the GA is flexible
and easy to implement, in terms of building different types of
individual and different number of populations.
Finally, we should also mention that since the analysis
reported in this paper has been conducted in steady-state
condition, the modelling of SSSC and TCSC are similar to
each other. For load-flow purposes in Matpower package
[23], these two FACTS devices are represented by a
variable-reactance inserted in the allocated branch line. In a
similar way, the modelling of the STATCOM is similar to the
SVC and both devices are represented by injected reactive
power in the allocated bus. Therefore for load-flow analysis
and modelling purposes SSSC and STATCOM have identical
modelling features with TCSC and SVC, respectively.
10 Conclusion
This paper presented analyses and a discussion of the effects
of different types of FACTS devices on the steady-state
performance of the Hydro-Québec network. Using a
248
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
GA-based optimisation method, the optimal locations and
values of different types of FACTS devices were
determined and the performance of the network was
analysed before and after inserting the FACTS devices. The
effects of five different FACTS devices including SVC,
TCSC, TCVR, TCPST, UPFC and STATCOM with SMES
were presented. Based on the results, the UPFC was the
most effective FACTS device if we want to increase the
loadability while reducing the losses at the same time, even
when the main objective function is maximising power
system loadability. Another contribution of this paper is the
study of the potential effects of FACTS with storage on
steady-state network performance. Although no benefits
were found on the Hydro-Québec network, which is mostly
radial, STATCOM with SMES was able to improve the
loadability and losses of several highly meshed IEEE test
systems.
11 Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Hydro-Québec Research
Institute (IREQ) for offering an internship to the first author
in order to perform this work. The authors also would like
to thank the manager of the Power Systems and
Mathematics Department for granting access to the data
required for this study.
12 References
1 http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec's_electricity_
transmission_system
2 Kamwa, I., Héniche, A., Cyr, C., et al.: ‘Power grid control research at
Hydro-Québec’, Eur. J. Electr. Eng. (EJEE), Innov. Electr. Energy,
2010, 13/5–6, pp. 645–673
3 Hingorani, N.: ‘Flexible AC transmission’, IEEE Spectr., 1993, 30, (4),
pp. 40–45
4 Zhang, X.P., Rehtanz, C., Pal, B.: ‘Flexible AC transmission systems:
modelling and control’ (Springer, New York, 2006)
5 Rahimzadeh, S., Tavakoli Bina, M., Viki, A.: ‘Simultaneous application
of multi-type FACTS devices to the restructured environment: achieving
both optimal number and location’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2009,
4, (3), pp. 349–362
6 Gerbex, S., Cherkaoui, R., Germond, A.J.: ‘Optimal placement of
multi-type FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic
algorithms’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2001, 16, (3), pp. 537–544
7 Najafi, S.R., Abedi, M., Hosseinian, S.H.: ‘A novel approach to optimal
allocation of SVC using genetic algorithms and continuation power
flow’. Proc. 2006, IEEE Int. Power and Energy Conf., 28–29
November 2006, pp. 202–206
8 Rashed, G.I., Shaheen, H.I., Cheng, S.J.: ‘Optimal location and
parameter setting of multiple TCSCs for increasing power system
loadability based on GA and PSO techniques’. Proc. 2007, IEEE Int.
Natural Computation Conf. (ICNC’07), 24–27 August 2007, vol. 4,
pp. 335–344
9 Kazemi, A., Arabkhabori, D., Yari, M., Aghaei, J.: ‘Optimal location of
UPFC in power systems for increasing loadability by genetic algorithm’.
Proc. 2006, IEEE Univs. Power Engineering Conf., 6–8 September
2006, vol. 2, pp. 774–779
10 Behshad, M., Lashkarara, A., Rahmani, A.H.: ‘Optimal location of
UPFC devices considering system loadability, total fuel cost, power
losses and cost of installation’. Proc. 2009, IEEE Int. Conf. Power
Electronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19–20 December
2009, vol. 2, pp. 1–7
11 Bhasaputra, P., Ongsakul, W.: ‘Optimal placement of multi-type FACTS
devices by hybrid TS/SA approach’. Proc. 2003, IEEE Circuits and
Systems (ISCAS’03), 25–28 May 2003, vol. 3, pp. 375–378
12 Gerbex, S., Cherkaoui, R., Germond, A.J.: ‘Optimal placement of
FACTS devices to enhance power system security’. Proc. 2003, IEEE
Power Technique Conf., 23–26 June 2003, vol. 3, pp. 1–6
13 Saravanan, M., Slochanal, S.M.R., Venkatesh, P., Abraham, P.S.:
‘Application of PSO technique for optimal location of FACTS devices
considering cost of installation and system loadability’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2007, 77, pp. 276–283
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316

14 Christa, S.T.J., Venkatesh, P.: ‘Application of particle swarm
optimization for optimal placement of unified power flow controllers
in electrical systems with line outages’. Proc. 2007, IEEE Int. Conf.
Computational Intelligence, 13–15 December 2007, vol. 1, pp. 119–124
15 Azadani, E.N., Hosseinian, S.H., Janati, M., Hasanpor, P.: ‘Optimal
Placement of Multiple STATCOM’. Proc. 2008, IEEE Int.
Middle-East Conf. Power Systems (MEPCON’08), 12–15 March
2008, pp. 523–528
16 Santiago-Luna, M., Cedeno-Maldonado, J.R.: ‘Optimal placement of
FACTS controllers in power systems via evolution strategies’. Proc.
2006, IEEE Trans. and Dist. Conf. & Exp. (TDC 2006), 15–18
August 2006, pp. 1–6
17 Kalyani, R.P., Crow, M.L., Tauritz, D.R.: ‘Optimal placement and
control of unified power flow control devices using evolutionary
computing and sequential quadratic programming’. Proc. 2006, IEEE
Power Systems Conf. and Exposition (PSCE’06), 29–30 November
2006, pp. 959–964
18 Marouani, I., Guesmi, T., Abdallah, H.H., Quali, A.: ‘Application of a
multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for optimal location and
parameters of FACTS devices considering the real power loss in
transmission lines and voltage deviation buses’. Proc. 2009, IEEE
System, Signals and Devices (SSD’09), pp. 1–6
19 Shaheen, H.I., Rashed, G.I., Cheng, S.J.: ‘Application of evolutionary
optimization techniques for optimal location and parameters setting of
multiple UPFC devices’. Proc. 2007, IEEE Int. Natural Computation
Conf. (ICNC’07), 24–27 August 2007, vol. 4, pp. 688–697
20 Ghahremani, E., Kamwa, I.: ‘Optimal placement of multiple-type
FACTS devices to maximize power system loadability using a generic
graphical user interface’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (2),
pp. 764–778
21 Ghahremani, E., Kamwa, I.: ‘Maximizing transmission capacity through
a minimum set of distributed multi-type FACTS’. Proc. IEEE PES
General Meeting 2012, 22–29 July 2012, pp. 523–528
22 Hingorani, N.G., Gyugyi, L.: ‘Understanding FACTS concepts and
technology of flexible AC transmission systems’ (IEEE Press,
New York, 1999)
23 Zimmermann, R.D., Sanchez, C.E.M., Thomas, R.J.: ‘Matpower:
steady-state operations, planning and analysis tools for power systems
research and education’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, (1),
pp. 12–19
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 233–249
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0316
www.ietdl.org
24 Golderberg, D.E.: ‘Genetic algorithm in search optimization and
machine learning’ (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1989)
25 Matlab® Help Documentation: ‘Global optimization toolbox user’s
guide’ (The MathWorks, Inc., 2010)
26 Duong, T., JianGan, Y., Truong, V.: ‘A new method for secured optimal
power flow under normal and network contingencies via optimal
location of TCSC’, J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2013, 52, pp. 68–80
27 Mithulananthan, N., Acharya, A.: ‘A proposal for investment recovery
of FACTS devices in deregulated electricity market’, J. Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2007, 77, pp. 695–703
28 Alabduljabbar, A.A., Milanovic, J.V.: ‘Assessment of techno-economic
contribution of FACTS devices to power system operation’, J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst., 2010, 80, pp. 1247–1255
29 Singh, S.N., David, A.K.: ‘Optimal location of FACTS devices for
congestion management’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2001, 58, (2),
pp. 71–79
30 Singh, S.N., David, A.K.: ‘Placement of FACTS device in open power
market’. Proc. 2000, IEEE Power System Control, Operation and
Management (APSCOM-2000), 30 October–1 November 2000, vol. 1,
pp. 173–177
31 Singh, S.N., Erlich, I.: ‘Locating unified power flow controller for
enhancing power system loadability’. Proc. 2005, IEEE Int. Conf.
Future Power Systems, 18–21 November 2005, pp. 1–5
32 Sharma, N.K., Ghosh, A., Varma, R.K.: ‘A novel placement strategy for
FACTS controllers’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2003, 18, (3),
pp. 982–987
33 Sharma, A., Chanana, S., Parida, S.: ‘Combined optimal location of
FACTS controllers and loadability enhancement in competitive
electricity markets using MILP’. Proc. 2005, IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting (PES’05), 12–16 July 2005, vol. 1,
pp. 670–677
34 Chang, R.W., Saha, T.K.: ‘Maximizing power system loadability by
optimal allocation of SVC using mixed integer linear programming’.
Proc. 2010, IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 25–29
July 2010, pp. 1–7
35 Lima, F.G.M., Galiana, F.D., Kockar, I., Munoz, J.: ‘Phase shifter
placement in large-scale systems via mixed integer linear
programming’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2003, 18, (3), pp. 1029–1034
36 Jones, K.O.: ‘Comparison of genetic algorithm and particle swarm
optimization’. Int. Conf. Computer Systems and Technologies
(CompSysTech’2005), 2005, pp. IIIA.1–1-IIIA
249
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014