See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291975026

Best Locations of Shunt SVCs for Steady State Voltage Stability Enhancement

Conference Paper · October 2015

DOI: 10.1109/CENCON.2015.7409583

CITATIONS READS
6 553

1 author:

Ibrahim B M Taha
Taif University
77 PUBLICATIONS   885 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Accurate Power Transformer Expected Fault Diagnosis View project

Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Electrical Power System Equipments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibrahim B M Taha on 15 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Best Locations of Shunt SVCs for Steady State

Voltage Stability Enhancement
Ibrahim B. M. Taha1,2
1
Power and Machines Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta,
2
Egypt, 2Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Taif University, Taif, KSA

Abstract— The reactive power generations play an important
role for electrical power system voltage stability margins. The
Static Var Compensators (SVCs) and other reactive power
resources are used for voltage stability enhancements. An
electrical power system stability model with one and two SVCs is
presented in this paper. The SVC state variables and firing
angles are combined with the bus line voltage magnitudes and
phase angles of the system in a single unknown column through
the iterative solution of the Newton-Raphson method. The effects
of suitable locations of SVCs on voltage stability limit are studied
at different load power factors. The proposed stability model is
built and tested by the IEEE –14 bus test system. The results
obtained illustrate the strength of the proposed model to
determine the suitable positions of SVCs.
Index Terms—Stability modes, Voltage collapse, Voltage
instability, SVC.
I. INTRODUCTION
SVCs are determined with minimum active and reactive
power losses through the system. Two SVCs are connected at
two more sensitive buses to increase the voltage stability
margins of the overall system. The system model with two
SVCs is introduced and analyzed. Besides, the system stability
enhancement is presented and discussed.
II. SVC COMPENSATOR MODEL
The are two system models of SVCS. These models are called:
SVC firing angle model and SVC total susceptance model [2].
The second type is presented and analyzed in this research
work. The SVC system model consists of a parallel
combination of a thyristor controlled reactor, TCR, and a fixed
capacitor as shown in Figure 1.
The inductive susceptance of the thyirstor controlled reactor,
TCR, can be calculated as a function of SVC firing angle,
ͻͲ଴ ൏‫ן‬൏ ͳͺͲ଴ ǡ as follows [1-4]:
ଵ ሺଶ஠ିଶ஑ିୱ୧୬ ଶ஑ሻ
୘ୈ ൌ (1)
ଡ଼ై ஠

D ue to the increase in load demand power, the safe

operation of electrical power systems becomes more
important [1]. This rapid increase in load power takes
where XL is reactor inductive reactance which equal to ɘ.

power systems to operate very close to its critical limits due to

economic and environmental requirements [1, 2]. The main
objective in electrical power system operations is to generate
energy with line voltage within acceptable limits and power
frequency to consumers at minimum cost [1-3]. This work
investigates an important power system phenomenon; that is
voltage stability. The voltage collapse scenario has occurred as
a result of the voltage instability problem. The main
parameters that have an influence in voltage collapse are: the
lack of sufficient reactive power, reactive power limits of
generators and transmission line losses [3]. The greatest Figure 1 SVC firing angle model
reason of voltage instability is the shortage of sufficient
reactive power in an electrical power system. The main two The equivalent reactance of TCR as a function of SVC firing
reasons of insufficient in reactive power of electrical power angle can be expressed as follows:
ଵ ஠
system are: large reactive power losses through transmission ୘ୈ ൌ ൌ ୐ (2)
୆౐ి౎ ሾଶሺ஑ି஠ሻିୱ୧ ୬ ଶ஑ሿ
lines and reactive power limits of system generating units [1- Therefore, the SVC effective reactance can be calculated as
7]. The transmission lines used in power system are usually follows:
long, so that, the reactive power transfer through these lines is ଡ଼ ଡ଼ ஠ଡ଼ై ଡ଼ి
ୗ୚େ ൌ ి ౐ి౎ ൌ ሾଶሺ஑ି஠ሻିୱ୧ (3)
difficult due to the important amount of required reactive ଡ଼౐ి౎ ିଡ଼ి ଡ଼ి ୬ ଶ஑ሿା஠ଡ଼ై
power transfer [6]. Consequently, it is required to insert The SVC equivalent susceptance as a function of SVC firing
reactive power sources at different buses of electrical power angle can be calculated as follows:
system [8-13]. ଵ ଡ଼ి ሾଶሺ஑ି஠ሻିୱ୧ ୬ ଶ஑ሿା஠ଡ଼ై
ୗ୚େ ൌ ൌ (4)
ଡ଼౏౒ి ஠ଡ଼ై ଡ଼ి
Static Var Compensators, SVCs, have been widely used in
electric power systems to satisfy two purposes: generations of The reactive power injected by the SVC can be calculated as a
reactive power and voltage stability improvements. In this function of firing angle as follows:
ଡ଼ి ሾଶሺ஑ି஠ሻିୱ୧ ୬ ଶ஑ሿା஠ଡ଼ై
work, SVC model is presented in details. The best locations of  ୱ୴ୡ ൌ ୗ୚େ  ଶ ൌ ଶ (5)
஠ଡ଼ై ଡ଼ి
where V is a per unit line to line voltage at SVC bus.
.

978-1-4799-8598-2/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE 430

 2

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the variations of the equivalent methods. Accordingly, this method will be applied in this
reactance and susceptance of SVC, respectively, against the work to represent the system model with some modification to
SVC firing angle with SVC reactive power varies from -0.8 p. include the SVC and the voltage dependent loads.
u. to 0.8 p. u. These results corresponds to capacitance The mismatch in active power at all system buses except the
reactance of 1.25 p. u. and variable inductive reactance of Slack bus and reactive power at load and SVC buses can be
0.625 p. u. Results in Figures 2 and 3 illustrate that the expressed as follows:
equivalent reactance is inductive for the firing angle range of ܸ௜ ௡௣௩
ͻͲ଴ ൑ Ƚ ൏ ͳͳ͵Ǥͺ଴ while it is capacitive for the firing angle οܲ௜ ൌ ܲீ௜ െ ܲ஽௜ െ ܲ௜ െ ‫ܭ‬௉ ܲ஽௜ ൬ ൰ ሺ͸ሻ
ܸ௜௢
range of ͳͳ͵Ǥͺ଴ ൏ ߙ ൑ ͳͺͲ଴ . ௏೔ ௡௣௩
οܳ௜ ൌ ܳீ௜ െ ܳ஽௜ െ ܳ௜ െ ‫ܭ‬௉ ܲ஽௜ –ƒ ‫׎‬௜ ቀ ቁ ሺ͹ሻ
50 ௏೔೚
οܳௌ௏஼௜ ൌ ܳீ௜ െ ܳ஽௜ െ ܳ௜ ൅ ܳௌ௏஼௜
40 ܸ௜ ௡௣௩
െ ‫ܭ‬௉ ܲ஽௜ –ƒ ‫׎‬௜ ൬ ൰ ሺͺሻ
30
ܸ௜௢
where:
20 ܸ௜ andܸ௜௢ are the per unit line voltage at ith bus at any load and
Inductive initial operating state respectively.
10 ݊‫ ݒ݌‬is the voltage dependent load power order that can be
Xeq, p. u.

expressed as:
0 Ͳ݂‫݀ܽ݋݈݁݃ܽݐ݈݋ݒݐ݊ܽݐݏ݊݋ܿݎ݋‬
Capacitive ݊‫ ݒ݌‬ൌ ቐ ͳ݂‫( ݀ܽ݋݈ݐ݊݁ݎݎݑܿݐ݊ܽݐݏ݊݋ܿݎ݋‬9)
-10
ʹ݂‫݀ܽ݋݈݁ܿ݊ܽ݀݁݌݉݅ݐ݊ܽݐݏ݊݋ܿݎ݋‬
-20 KP is the loading factor.
ܲீ௜ , ܳீ௜ are the active and reactive power generations.
-30 ܲ஽௜ , ܳ஽௜ are the active and reactive power demands.
ܲ௜ , ܳ௜ are the active and reactive power flows through the
-40 transmission lines which can be expressed as [11, 12]:
ܲ௜ ൌ ܸ௜ଶ ܻ௜௜ …‘• ߠ௜௜ ൅ σ௡௝ୀଵ ܸ௜ ܸ௝ ܻ௜௝ …‘•൫ߠ௜௝ െ ߜ௜ ൅ ߜ௝ ൯(10)
-50 ௝ஷ௜
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Firing angle, degree ܳ௜ ൌ െܸ௜ଶ ܻ௜௜ •‹ ߠ௜௜ െ σ௡௝ୀଵ ܸ௜ ܸ௝ ܻ௜௝ •‹ሺߠ௜௝ െ ߜ௜ ൅ ߜ௝ ሻ (11)
௝ஷ௜
Figure 2 SVC equivalent reactance versus firing angle.
where n is the total number of busses.
Equations (6), (7) and (8) represent set of nonlinear algebraic
0.8
equations that can be expanded by Taylor series as follows:
డο௉೔ డο௉೔
0.6
οܲ௜௞ ൌ ቚ οߜ௜௞ ൅ ቚ οܸ௜௞ (12)
డఋ೔ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ డ௏೔ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ
೔ ೔ ೔ ೔
డοொ೔ డοொ೔
οܳ௜௞ ൌ ቚ οߜ௜௞ ൅ ቚ οܸ௜௞ (13)
0.4 డఋ೔ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ డ௏೔ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ
೔ ೔ ೔ ೔
௞
߲οܳௌ௏஼௜ ߲οܳௌ௏஼௜
Capacitive οܳௌ௏஼௜ ൌ ฬ ൅ ฬ οܸ௜௞
0.2 ߲ߜ௜ ఋೖ ǡ௏ ೖ ǡఈೖ ߲ܸ௜ ఋೖ ǡ௏ ೖ ǡఈೖ
೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔ ೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔
డοொೄೇ಴೔
Beq, p. u.

௞
൅ ቚ
డఈೄೇ಴೔ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ ǡఈ ೖ
οߙௌ௏஼௜ (14)
0 ೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔

Inducitive Equations (12), (13) and (14) can be rewritten in matrix form
-0.2 as follows:
డο௉೔ డο௉೔
Ͳ
డఋ೔ డ௏೔ οߜ௜௞
-0.4 ‫ ۇ‬డοொ೔ డοொ೔ ‫ۊ‬
‫ ۈ‬డఋ೔ డఋ೔
Ͳ ‫ۋ‬ ቌ οܸ௜௞ ቍ ൌ
௞
-0.6 డοொೄೇ಴೔ డοொೄೇ಴೔ డοொೄೇ಴೔ οߙௌ௏஼௜
‫ ۉ‬డఋ೔ డ௏೔ డఈೄೇ಴೔ ‫ی‬ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ ǡఈ ೖ
೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔

-0.8 οܲ௜௞
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
ቌ οܳ௜௞ ቍ (15)
Firing Angle, Degree
௞
Figure 3 SVC equivalent susceptance versus firing angle. οܳௌ௏஼௜ ఋ ೖ ǡ௏ ೖ ǡఈ ೖ
೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔
k
The mismatches in Δδ ik , ΔVi k and Δα svci can be calculated
III. SYSTEM MODEL AND SOLUTION METHODOLOGY as follows:
III.1 SYSTEM MODEL οߜ௜௞ οܲ௜௞
Due to the speed of convergence, the Newton-Raphson ቌ οܸ௜௞ ቍ ൌ െሺ‫ܬ‬௞ ሻିଵ ቌ οܳ௜௞ ቍ (16)
method is more preferable than other power flow solution ௞ ௞
οߙௌ௏஼௜ οܳௌ௏஼௜

431
 3

Where ‫ܬ‬௞ is the Jacobian matrix at kth iteration. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
‫ܬ‬ଵ ‫ܬ‬ଶ Ͳ The MATLAB M-file program is built to simulate the system
‫ܬ‬௞ ൌ ൭‫ܬ‬ଷ ‫ܬ‬ସ Ͳ ൱ model proposed in previous sections. The standard IEEE-14
‫ܬ‬ହ ‫ ଻ܬ ଺ܬ‬ఋೖǡ௏ ೖǡఈೖ bus test system is used to validate the proposed model. Firstly,
೔ ೔ ೄೇ಴೔
The Jacobians J1 to J7 elements are presented in Appendices A the suitable position of the SVC is determined by the
and B at the end of this paper. minimum active and reactive losses obtained with SVC
The value of bus voltage, phase angles and SVC firing angles connected at different positions on the system.
in ik+1 iteration can are evaluated as follows: Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the total system active and reactive
ܸ௜௞ାଵ ൌ ܸ௜௞ ൅ οܸ௜௞ାଵ ǡ ݅ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ݊ െ ͳ െ ݊௩ െ ݊௦௩௖ ሺͳ͹ሻ losses versus the SVC position for only one SVC connected at
ߜ௜௞ାଵ ൌ ߜ௜௞ ൅ οߜ௜௞ାଵ ǡ ݅ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ݊ െ ͳሺͳͺሻ one load bus. The SVC injective reactive power varies from -
௞ାଵ
ߙ௦௩௖௜ ௞
ൌ ߙ௦௩௖௜ ௞ାଵ
൅ οߙ௦௩௖௜ ǡ ݅ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ݊௦௩௖ ሺͳͻሻ 0.8 to 0.8 p. u. The results illustrate that the minimum active
where nv is number of voltage control buses. and reactive losses are obtained when SVC connected at bus 4
nsvc is the number of SVC buses. that are 18.436 MW and 83.999 MVAR, respectively.
In order to determine the best location of the two SVCs, the
III.2 SOLUTION METHODOLOGY first SVC is connected to bus 4 and the second one is moved
The solution methodology of the model system introduced in from load bus to another one. Then the minimum losses are
Section 3 is illustrated by a flow chart shown in Figure 4. calculated. The minimum value of the active and reactive
losses is observed when the second SVC was at bus 14. This
process is repeated where the first SVC is connected to
different load bus at each time. The minimum loss value is
temporally determined.

20.2

20

19.8
Total Active Power Losses, MW

19.6

19.4

19.2

19

18.8

18.6

π / 2 E α svci E π 18.4
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Bus Number
α svci E π / 2 Figure 5 total active power losses versus SVC position
k E max iter

Ybusii = Ybusii + jBcimax 89

Ybusii = Ybusii + jBcimin
Total Reactive Power Losses, MVAR

α svci = π / 2 88
αsvci = π

87

86
∈≤ tol

85

84
K P = K P + ΔK P
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Bus Number
Figure 4 solution methodology flow chart Figure 6 total reactive power losses versus SVC position

432
 4

20 illustrate that the stability margin increased with SVCs

connected at busses 4, 14 compared to that of stability margin
19 when SVCs connected at busses 7, 13 and without SVC cases
18
respectively.
1.1
Total Active Power Losses, MW

17 SVC at 4, 14
SVC at 7, 13
16 Without SVC

15

1.05
14

Bus Voltage, p. u.
13

12

11
1
10
4-14 5-4 7-4 9-4 10-4 11-4 12-4 13-4 14-4
SVC Positions
Figure 7 total active power losses versus two SVC positions

0.95
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
85 Bus Number

Figure 9 Bus line voltages versus bus number with SVCs at

Total Reactive Power Losses, MVAR

buses 4, 14, 7, 17 and without SVCs

80
1.05
V13
75 1

0.95
70
V4 , V7 , V1 3 , V 1 4 , p.u.

0.9 V14
V7
65 0.85

0.8
60 V14
4-14 5-4 7-4 9-4 10-4 11-4 12-4 13-4 14-4
0.75 SVCs at 4, 14
SVC Positions

Figure 8 total reactive power losses versus the two SVCs SVCs at 7, 13
0.7
position V4
Without
0.65
Figures 7 and 8 for active and reactive power losses,
respectively, show that the minimum active and reactive
power losses are obtained when the two SVCs are connected 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
at busses 4 and 14. Total Added Active Power, p.u.
Figure 9 illustrates the per unit line to line voltages at the Figure 10 V4, V7, V13 and V14 at 0.8 lagging power factor
different system buses against the bus number with SVC versus total added active power with SVCs at 4, 14, with
connected at buses 4 and 14 (correct position choice) SVC SVCs at 7, 13 and without SVC.
connected at buses 7 and 13 (incorrect position choice) and
without SVC. It shows that the voltage profile when SVCs Figure 11 illustrates the line voltages at buses 4, 7, 13 and 14
connected at buses 4 and 14 is better than that when SVC versus total added active power at 0.95 leading power for
connected at busses 7 and 13 and without SVC. constant current load case when the two SVCs are connected
Figure 10 illustrates the line voltages at bus 4, 7, 13 and 14 at at buses 4, 14, and at buses 7, 13, dotted line, and without
0.8 lagging power factor load versus total added active power SVCs. The results illustrate that the stability margin increased
when the two SVCs are connected at buses 4, 14, and at buses when SVCs connected at busses 4, 14 compared to that
7, 13 and without SVC. The added loads here are 0.8 lagging obtained when SVCs connected at busses 7, 13 and without
power factor constant impedance load݊‫ ݒ݌‬ൌ ʹ. The results SVC cases, respectively.

433
 5

1.05 1.05
V13
V13
1 V14
1
V7
0.95 V14
V4 , V7, V1 3, V14 , p. u.

0.95
0.9 V14

V4, V7, V13, V14, p. u.

V7
0.9
0.85
0.85
0.8
V4 V14
SVCs at 4, 14 0.8
0.75
SVCs at 7, 13
0.75 SVCs at 4, 14 V4
0.7
Without SVCs
Without SVC
0.65 0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total added active power, p.u.
0.65
Figure 11 V4, V7, V13, and V14 at 0.95 leading power factor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
versus total added active power with SVCs at 4, 14, and 7, 13 Total added active power, p. u.
and without SVC. Figure 13 V4, V7, V13, and V14 at unity power factor versus
total added active power with and without SVC.
180 1.05
V13
170 1 V14
SVCs firing angles, degree

V7
160 0.95
V 4 , V 7 , V 1 3 , V 1 4 , p. u.

α1 α1
150 0.9 V14

140 0.85

130 α2 0.8
V4
SVCs at 4, 14
SVCs at 4, 14 0.75
120
Without SVCs
α2 0.7
110 SVCs at 7, 13
0.65
100 3 4 5 0 1
6 2
7 8
2 0 4 6 8 Total added active power, p.u.
Total Added Active Power, p.u. Figure 14 V4, V7, V13, and V14 at 0.95 leading power factor
Figure 12 SVC Firing angles at 0.95 leading with SVC versus total added active power with SVCs at busses 4, 14 and
At 4, 14 and 7, 13 respectively without SVC.
Figure 12 illustrates the SVCs firing angles against the total Figure 14 shows the line voltages at buses 4, 7, 13 and 14 at
added active power for 0.95 leading power factor loads, 0.95 leading power factor constant current load case versus
constant current load case. It illustrates that the firing angles total added active power with SVCs connected at busses 4, 14
increases with the load increase and it keeps its upper limit at and without SVCs. The stability margin is improved with
a constant value of 1800where the SVC bus is converted to a SVCs case as compared to that without SVCS.
load bus.
Figure 13 illustrates the line voltage at buses 4, 7, 13 and 14 Figure 15 illustrates the line voltage at buses 7 and 14 versus
versus total added active power at unity power with constant total added active power at different load power factors with
impedance load case with SVCs connected at busses 4 and 14 and without SVCs (SVCs at busses 4 and 14) at constant
and without SVCs (dotted line). It illustrates that the stability impedance load case. It illustrates that the stability margins are
margins is improved with SVCs compared to that without improved with SVCs at different power factor loads with
SVCs. The total added active power with SVCs is 806.3 MW, SVCs as compared to that without SVCs at different power
while that with SVCs is 786.2 MW, and total system active factors.
power losses with SVCs is 18.41 MW while that without
SVCs is 18.55 MW.

434

1.05 V7 a
1 Industrial Electronics and Applications, ICIEA 25-27 May
0.95
V14
V7 , V 1 4 , p.u.
0.9
0.85 a: 0.8 lead p.f.
b: unityp.f. c b
0.8
c: 0.8 lag p.f.
0.75 SVCs at 4, 14
0.7 Without SVCs
0.65
0 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8
Total added active power, p.u.
Figure 15 V7 and V14 versus total added active power at
different load power factors with and without SVCs.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A steady state stability model including voltage dependent
loads and two SVC is presented in this paper. The SVC state
variables and firing angles are combined with the bus line
voltage magnitudes and phase angles of the system in a single
unknown column through the iterative solution of the Newton-
Raphson method. The best locations of the SVCs are obtained
when the system active and reactive losses are minimum. The
proposed stability model is built and tested by the IEEE–14
bus test system with different voltage dependent load types at
variable load power factors. The power system stability is
improved by determining the best locations of the SVCs at
busses 4 and 14 in IEEE–14 bus test system. The results
illustrate that the best locations is obtained when the SVC is
connected to bus 4 with one SVC inserted in the system. The
results also illustrate that the best locations is obtained when
the SVCs is connected to busses 4 and 14 with two SVCs
inserted in the system. The stability margin is increased when
the SVCs connected at best locations as compared to other
locations and without SVCs cases.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Kazemi, B. Badrzadeh, "Modeling and simulation of
SVC and TCSC to study their limits on maximum
loadability point ", Elsevier Ltd., Electrical Power and
Energy Systems, 2004.
[2] H. A. PBrez, E. Acha, and C. R. F. Esquivel, "Advanced
SVC Models for Newton-Raphson Load Flow and Newton
Optimal Power Flow Studies", IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 1, February 2000.
[3] M. O. Hassan, S. J. Cheng, Z. A. Zakaria, "Steady-State
Modeling of SVC and TCSC for Power Flow Analysis",
Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of
Engineers and Computer Scientists 2009 Vol. II, IMECS
2009, March 18 - 20, 2009, Hong Kong.
View publication stats
6
[4] Y. Chang, R. Chang, "Utilization Performance based
FACTS Devices Installation Strategy for Transmission
a Loadability Enhancement", 4th IEEE conference on
b
2009.
a [5] D. Hluben, L. Bena, M. Kolcun, "Use of TCSC for Active
Power Flow Control in the Electric Power System", 11th
b a
International Scientific Conference FORECASTING IN
c b ELECTRIC POWER ENGINEERING PE 2011, Wisáa,
14-16 September 2011.
c [6] O. L. BEKRI, M. K. FELLAH, "Optimal Location of
SVC and TCSC for Voltage Stability Enhancement", the
c
4th International Power Engineering and Optimization
Conference (PEOCO2010), Shah Alam, Selangor,
MALAYSIA. 23-24 June 2010.
[7] O. Yahyaqui, R. Aquini, K. B. K-ilani, M. Elleuch,
"Enhancement Of Voltage Stability in Ultra High Voltage
Electric Network by Static Var Compensation", 8th
International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals &
9
Devices, 2011.
[8] J.S. Huang, Z.H. Jiang, M. Negnevitsky, "Loadability of
power systems and optimal SVC placement", Elsevier
Ltd., Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 2013.
[9] M. Z. E1-Sadek, M. M. Dessouky, G. A. Mahmoud , W. I.
Rashed, "Enhancement of steady-state voltage stability by
static VAR compensators", Elsevier Ltd., Electrical Power
and Energy Systems, 1997.
[10] M. H. Haque, "Determination Of Steady State voltage
Stability Limit Of A Power system In The Presence Of
Svc", IEEE Porto Power Tech Conference, 10-13
September, Porto, Portugal, 2001.
[11] D. Mondal, A. Chakrabarti, A. Sengupta," Optimal
placement and parameter setting of SVC and TCSC
using PSO to mitigate small signal stability problem",
Elsevier Ltd., Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42,
pp. 334–340, 2012.
[12] N. M. G. Kumar, P. Venkatesh, Dr. P. Sangamewara
Raju, "Modeling and Analysis of SVC, TCSC, TCPAR
in Power Flow Studies", International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1, January
2013.
[13] M. S. Payam, M. H. Mirfatah, H. Fayazi, M. Eghtedari,
"Voltage stability improvement by using FACTS
elements with economic consideration", Advances in
Natural and Applied Sciences, American-Eurasian
Network for Scientific Information, June, 2014
435