Ph.D.

Research Proposal
Doctoral Program in Electrical Engineering
Ph.D. in FACTS Devices

Proposed Research Topic:

HOLISTIC MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMAL LOCATION OF UNIFIED

POWER FLOW CONTROLLER (UPFC)

Applicant:

Imran Khan Jadoon

imranjadoon771@gmail.com

Submitted to:

THE FACULTY OF ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICAL

ENGINEERING
DONGGUK UNIVERSITY
SEPTEMBER,2023
Contents
1. Introduction & Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 3
2. Justification for the Research Proposal............................................................................................... 6
2.1 Research Gap ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Lack of Clarity ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Lack of Applicability ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 7
3. The Aim & Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 8
4. The Research Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Research Tools and Materials ....................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Mathematical Modeling of UPFC .................................................................................... 9
.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.2 Formulation of Objective Functions.............................................................................. 11
4.2.3 Formulation of Constraints ........................................................................................... 13
4.3 Result Compilation ...................................................................................................................... 14
5. Projection of Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 16
6. Suggested Time Frame ...................................................................................................................... 17
7. Limitations of my research................................................................................................................ 17
8. Implications of my proposed research work .................................................................................... 17
9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 18

2
 Holistic Multi-Objective Optimal Location of Unified Power Flow
Controller (UPFC)

1. Introduction & Literature Review

Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System (FACTS) devices are widely deployed for
the promising performance of power systems [1]. In spite of their dynamic approach to
dealing with the challenges in power systems, power system researchers must justify the
deployment of FACTS devices due to their expensive cost. In most cases, it is noticed that
even their initial cost has not been recovered. Moreover, this fact is more prominent when
FACTS devices are deployed in complex and widely distributed power systems [2]. This
shortcoming of FACTS devices developed a research appetite, which led the researchers to
“power system optimization”.

Optimization techniques are broadly divided into three categories according to their historic
background: Classical Analytical-Based Methods (CABMs), Classical Arithmetic
Programming-Based Algorithms (CAPBAs), and Modern Metaheuristic-Based Algorithms
(MMBAs). In comparison of all these, MMBAs and Hybrid approaches are the most widely
used to address the most common eight (08) power system problems, as illustrated in Fig. 1
[2].

Fig. 1: Most common problems addressed by using optimization techniques [2]

3
In the modern era of evolving science and technology, the incorporation of FACTS devices is
vital as they improve various parameters of the power system, which results in its overall
optimal performance. And with the in-depth comparative analysis of FACTS devices, the
Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is reckoned as the most promising. Because of the
incorporation of UPFC, all three parameters of the power system can be controlled, like bus
voltages, transmission line reactance, and bus phase angles [3]. But mere installation of
UPFC is not sufficient for overall improvement of the power system; therefore, to accrue
promising results, researchers would have to select the best optimal location for the
installation of UPFC [3]. And under the domain of optimal location of UPFC, the power
system researchers must address any number of the following four objectives [3]:

1. Voltage profile stability or improvement

2. Power profile improvement

3. Optimization of UPFC installation cost

4. Optimization of generator or fuel cost

A lot of research has been conducted in this research area, and a brief background on this will
be provided in the following paragraphs:

Research has been conducted in 2012 to find the best optimal location of FACTS devices like
UPFC, Phase Shift Transformer (PST), and Hybrid Flow Controller (HFC) while addressing
total fuel cost and power profile with the help of multi-objective optimization methodology
[4]. All the research work has been conducted over software environments like MATLAB
and General Algebraic Modeling Systems (GAMS) by selecting an IEEE 14-bus system as
the test modal. In spite of promising results, objectives like voltage profile and cost have not
been addressed at all, which clearly indicates a research gap.

A comparatively promising amount of research has been carried out in the year 2014, in the
sense that it almost addresses three existing problems of the power system by considering real
power loss, voltage instability, and generator cost. The research objectives are based on
determining the optimal location of FACTS devices such as the Thyristor Controlled Series
Capacitor (TCSC), the Static VAR Compensator (SVC), and the Unified Power Flow
Controller (UPFC). Consequently, the objectives are fulfilled by using an optimization
technique named GA, and all this research is conducted on a standard IEEE 14-bus system
using software named MATLAB [5]. It has been found that objectives such as complete
power profiles and UPFC installation costs have been overlooked, which eventually leads us
towards the research gap in the field of optimal location of FACTS devices.

In the same year, another research project in the field of the best optimal location of UPFC
was conducted, which addressed two existing problems of the power system by considering
power loss reduction and cost reduction of UPFC. All this research is conducted by applying
an advanced gravitational search algorithm to a standard IEEE 57-bus system using the
simulation software MATLAB [6]. Instead of promising results, this research has also not
filled the research gap while not addressing objectives such as voltage profile and fuel cost.
4
In the year 2016, much promising research has been conducted over the IEEE 30-bus test
modal to address objectives such as fuel cost, UPFC installation cost, and power profile
improvement with the help of an optimization technique named Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) [7]. In this research, once again, the voltage profile stability problem has not been
addressed at all.

A quite similar research has been conducted in the field of best optimal location of FACTS
devices such as SVC, UPFC, and STATCOM over an IEEE 30-bus test system to address
objectives such as fuel cost, device installation cost, and active power profile improvement
with the help of an optimization technique named Multi-objective Particle Swarm
Optimization (MOPSO) [8]. In this research, instead of addressing the voltage profile
stability of the buses, only the voltage deviation of the overall power test system has been
illustrated. This would not depict the holistic voltage profile of individual buses and
eventually lead us towards a lack of clarity. Moreover, a reactive power improvement
objective has not been addressed at all, which clearly shows a research gap.

Comparatively, the most promising research has been conducted in 2017 by addressing all of
the objectives such as Voltage profile improvement, Active and Reactive Power Loss
Minimization, UPFC Installation cost, and Generation Cost over IEEE 14, 30, and 57 bus test
systems [9]. This is the most promising in a sense of addressing all objectives, but all this
research has been conducted using a conventional optimization technique named Newton-
Raphson Load Flow (NRLF). Moreover, in comparison to all previous research works, a new
software environment named Mi-Power 9.0 has been chosen for the conduct of this research
work. Consequently, because of these two factors, this research would lead us towards a lack
of applicability.

Further advancement has been brought into the field of optimal location of FACTS devices in
the year 2020 by drawing a comparative analysis between Hybrid Power Flow Controller
(HPFC) and UPFC while addressing all objectives except reactive power profile [10]. This
research work has also been conducted by applying a convention-based optimization
technique named the Newton-Raphson (NR) method. Moreover, a too simple IEEE test
system, i.e., the IEEE 9-bus test system, has been opted for the conduct of this research work,
which clearly leads us towards the lack of applicability of the research work.

In the year 2020, a comparative analysis among three modern optimization techniques named
Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CSA), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) has been drawn while selecting the best optimal location and sizing of
UPFC over the IEEE 30-bus test system [11]. This research highlights CSA, the most
efficient technique for finding the optimal location and sizing of UPFC. Nevertheless, in this
research work, reactive power profile and voltage profile objectives have not been addressed
at all, which clearly leads us towards the research gap.

In the same year, research was conducted over IEEE 30 and IEEE 118-bus test systems in
which the best optimal location of three types of FACTS devices (TCSC, TCPST, and UPFC)
was evaluated [12]. This research projects UPFC as the most promising, although only five

5
locations are chosen for the test of optimal location, which clearly would not analyze the
entire power system. Therefore, this would lead us towards a lack of clarity. Moreover, UPFC
has been separately analyzed for the optimization of only one single objective at a time,
negating all other objectives of the power system in the field of optimal location. This clearly
indicates a research gap in this field.

The most recent research has been conducted in the current year of 2023. The main objectives
of this research are to establish a comparative analysis between optimization techniques such
as the Newton-Raphson method and PSO, along with power flow analysis. The most
commendable attribute of this research is the projection of a green or environmentally
friendly microgrid test system on MATLAB or Simulink for the standard IEEE 14-bus
system. This is called green or environmentally friendly because of the installation of
renewable energy sources into the power system. In the culmination phase, as a conclusion,
PSO is highlighted with promising performance from the perspective of power flow analysis
[13]. Nevertheless, a research gap has been projected in this research in the sense that no
FACTS device has been incorporated into the standard IEEE test system.

2. Justification for the Research Proposal

As a result of the in-depth analysis in the field of the optimal location of FACTS devices, the
following prominent facts have been summarized:

a) All this highlights Modern Metaheuristic-Based Algorithms (MMBAs) as most

promising for addressing various problems of FACTS-mounted power systems
(Mirsaeidi; Devkota in 2023) [2].
b) And with the in-depth comparative analysis of FACTS devices, the Unified
Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is reckoned as the most promising [3].

Under the domain of optimal location of FACTS devices, the power system researchers try to
address a certain number of objectives out of the following four (04) [3]:

1. Voltage profile stability or improvement

2. Power profile improvement
3. Optimization of UPFC installation cost
4. Optimization of generator or fuel cost

c) The in-depth analysis of the optimal location of FACTS devices has illustrated
various research deficiencies, such as a research gap, a lack of clarity, and finally
a lack of applicability. In the following lines, all of the research deficiencies
would be elaborated separately:

2.1 Research Gap

This has been analyzed and shows that a lot of researchers (Lashkar; Siddiqui; Amirtham;
Bhati in 2012; 2014; 2016; 2020) [4], [6], [7], and [11], while conducting their research, have

6
not addressed the voltage profile objective at all. All of these researches clearly indicate a
research gap in this field.

In addition, various acknowledged researchers (Dheebika; Metweely; Bhati in 2014; 2017;

2020) [5], [8], [11], while conducting their respective research, have not addressed a
complete power profile, which also clearly indicates a research gap problem in this field.

Moreover, some of the researchers (Lashkar; Dheebika in 2012; 2014) [4], [5], while
conducting their research, have not addressed this, which results in a research gap.

In the culmination, some of the most recent researchers (Raheel; Rabia in 2023) [13], while
conducting their research, have not even incorporated any FACTS devices into the test
system.

2.2 Lack of Clarity

This problem has also been analyzed that some researchers (Metweely; Morsy in 2017) [8].
In the course of their respective research, instead of addressing the voltage profile stability of
all the respective buses, only the voltage deviation of the overall power test system has been
illustrated. This would definitely not depict the holistic voltage profile of all of the individual
buses and eventually lead us towards a lack of clarity.

Similarly, some of the researchers (Singh; Tiwari in 2020) [12], while conducting their
research, project UPFC as the most promising, although only five locations are opted for the
test of optimal location, negating all of the rest locations, which clearly depict a sense of lack
of clarity by not protecting the holistic optimal location placement of UPFC.

2.3 Lack of Applicability

In-depth analysis has also illustrated this fact that some of the researchers (Das; Shegaonkar;
Gupta in 2017) [9], have conducted the most promising research by addressing all four
objectives. Nevertheless, they conducted it by applying a conventional optimization
technique and selecting a much less promising software environment, such as Mi-Power 9.0.
Consequently, because of these two factors, this research would lead us towards a lack of
applicability.

Similarly, researchers (Bhandakkar; Mathew in 2018) [10], while drawing a comparative

analysis between HPFC and UPFC, have applied conventional optimization techniques and
selected a very simple IEEE 9-bus test system for the conduct of their research.
Consequently, these two factors lead us towards a lack of applicability.

2.4 Conclusion

According to the best of my knowledge, no research work has been published so far, which is
entirely free of all of the research issues such as the research gap, lack of clarity, and lack of
applicability. Therefore, there is an immense demand for the conduct of research work in the

7
field of optimal location of FACTS devices, which must be free of all the mentioned research
problems.

3. The Aim & Objectives

From the perspective of the conclusion as drawn in the former section, the aim of my
proposed research work is:

 To conduct holistic research work in a multi-objective optimal location of

UPFC in a sense that would overcome all of the identified research gaps, lack
of clarity, and lack of applicability in this field.

And, to fulfil the aim of my proposed research work, I would have fourfold objectives:

1. To project the most universally acknowledged test system for the conduct of
this proposed research.
2. To mathematically model and mount UPFC into the test system.
3. To formulate objective functions along with constraints that would address all
of the four (04) main existing problems in the power system.
4. To draw the conclusion for the best optimal location of the UPFC on the basis
of the final consequences.

4. The Research Methodology

To fulfil the objectives of my proposed research work, it should be conducted in a specific
manner, which is called research methodology. It has three types: qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed. The nature of the research methodology in my proposed research work for the
conduct of comparative analysis would be quantitative. Furthermore, all of the details of the
quantitative research methodology for my proposed research work will be discussed in the
following sections:

4.1 Research Design

This would serve as a foundation for the proposed research work in the sense that it would
provide a conducting platform. Therefore, it should have the attributes of universal
acceptance and real-world power system projection. To fulfil this, I would select one recent
journal research paper (Raheel; Rabia in 2023) [13] as my case study. That projects a green
or environmentally friendly microgrid test system on MATLAB or Simulink for the standard
IEEE 14-bus system. Thus, I would project this as my test system for the conduct of my
proposed research. The details of the test model are provided in Table 1.

8
 Bus No Nature V(p.u) Power/Voltages

1 Diesel Power Plant 1 10 MVA/ 6.6 KV

2 Synchronous Condensor 1 1 MVA/ 11 KV
3 Battery Bank 1 0.5 MVA/900 V
4,5 Residential Load 1 Single Phase (1500 KW/ 220 V)
Three Phase (1000 KW/ 4400 V)
6 Solar Power Plant 1 1 MVA/ 260 V
7 Grounding Transformer 1 0 MVA (grounding) / 11 KV
8 Wind Power Plant 1 4 MVA/ 575 V
9,10,11 Commercial Loads 1 1000/ 440 V
350000/ 440V
12,13,14 Industrial Loads 1 Industrial (Static) 500 KW/ 3.3 KV
Industrial (Dynamic) 500 KW/ 3.3 KV

Table 1: IEEE 14 bus Test system details [13]

4.2 Research Tools and Materials

After laying the foundation, I would have to choose the best available tools and materials in
the field of the optimal location of UPFC. To conduct quantitative research on the software
environment named MATLAB, I would have to formulate three (03) main aspects as follows:

1. To mathematically model UPFC.

2. To formulate objective functions.
3. To formulate constraints.

All of the above three points would be elaborated separately in the following sections:

4.2.1 Mathematical Modeling of UPFC

The UPFC is actually a hybrid combination of one series and one parallel controller. The
series controller is called a static compensator (STATCOM), while the parallel has the
entitlement of a static synchronous series compensator (SSSC). Both of them are connected
to each other through a DC link, which would facilitate the exchange of active power
between both controllers [9]. To draw a mathematical model incorporating UPFC between
two buses, first of all, we would formulate power equations with the help of Fig. 2.

9
 Vm Vn
ISE
+ -
Im In
ISH

ESH  SH ESE  SE
mth bus nth bus
-

+
Vdc

Shunt converter Series converter

Fig. 2: UPFC set up between mth and nth bus [9]

For better intuition regarding the UPFC setup, we would have to further explain the model.
As transmission lines are connected under two topologies in the UPFC model as series and
parallel, we would illustrate them in their respective admittance (Y) equation form, as
illustrated in Fig. 3.

Vm Vn
ISE

Im
- + In
YSE = GSE + jBSE ESE
ISH
mth bus nth bus

YSH = GSH + jBSH

+
ESH
-

Fig. 3: Equivalent UPFC circuit model [9]

Formulation of mathematical modelling of active and reactive power injection at m th and nth
buses, while the incorporation of UPFC is given by the equations (1-4) [9].

10
 Qm  BSH  BSE Vm  Vm E SH YSH sin  SH   m   n   Vm E SE YSE sin  SE   SE   m 
2

NB
 Vm Vn YSE sin  SE   m   n    Vm Vk Ymk sin  mk   m   k         (1)
k 1

Pm  G SH  G SE Vm  Vm E SH YSH cos SH   m   SH   Vm E SE YSE cos SE   SE   m 

2

NB
 Vm Vn YSE cos SE   m   n    Vm Vk Ymk cos mk   m   k         (2)
k 1

Pn  G SH Vn  Vn Vm YSE cos SE   n   m   Vn E SE YSE cos SE   SE   m   Vn E SE YSE

2

NB
cos SE   SE   m    Vn Vk Ynk cos nk   n   k         (3)
k 1

NB
Qn   B SE Vn  Vn Vm YSE sin  SE   n   SH   Vn E SE YSE sin  SE   SE   n    Vn Vk
2

k 1

Ynk sin  nk   n   k         (4)

Similarly, active and reactive power flow from the mth to the nth bus and vice versa with the
incorporation of UPFC is represented with the help of equations (5-8) [9].

Pmn  GSH  GSE Vm  Vm E SH YSH cos SH   m   SH   Vm E SE YSE cos SE   SE   m 

2

 Vm Vn YSE cos SE   m   n         (5)

Qmn  BSH  BSE Vm  Vm E SH YSH sin  SH   m   SH   Vm E SE YSE sin  SE   SE   m 

2

 Vm Vn YSE sin  SE m   n         (6)

Pnm  GSE Vn  Vn Vm YSE cos SE   n   m   Vn ESE YSE cos SE   SE   m       (7)

2

Qnm   BSE Vn  Vn Vm YSE sin  SE   n   SH   Vn ESE YSE sin  SE   SE   n     (8)

2

4.2.2 Formulation of Objective Functions

To overcome the research gap, we would have to address all of the four main problems in the
power system. Therefore, our objective function would be fourfold, and each one would be
elaborated in the following paragraphs:

11
 i. Voltage Profile Stability or Improvement

Because of the functioning of UPFC, the voltage improvement at the mth bus would be
calculated with the help of equation (9) [9], as follows:

Vm  Vmin  * Vmax V m 

VPm       (9)
Vnom  Vmin  * Vmax  Vnom 
Where Vnom = nominal or desired voltage, and we would set its value as 1 p.u. Moreover, we
would also calculate the overall voltage profile improvement index with the help of equation
(10) [9], as follows:
N
1
VPI m 
N
VP
m 1
m      (10)

where, N = number of buses.

Finally, we would calculate the VPI index with the help of equation (11) [9], as follows:

VPI withUPFC
VPII m       (11)
VPI withoutUPFC

ii. Active and Reactive Power Profile Improvement

In my proposed research work, power losses would also be considered with the help of
equations (12-13) [9], as follows:
NB
PL  PGm  PDm   Vm Vn Ymn cos m   n   mn       (12)
m 1
NB
QL  QGm  QDm   Vm Vn Ymn sin  m   n   mn       (13)
m 1

iii. UPFC Installation Cost

To find UPFC installation cost in terms of $/hr and $/KVA, we would use equations (14-16)
[9], as follows:

 
CUPFC  [ FUPFC n * S n * 1000 *  / 8760 ]dollar / hr      (14)
FUPFC n  (0.0003 S 2 m  0.2691S m  188 .22)dollar / KVA    (15)

The value of capital cost recovery factor λ would be determined with the help of equation
(16) [9], as follows:

r 1  r 
n
      (16)
1  r n  1

12
where, r = interest rate.

n = recovery time period in months.

iv. Generation Cost

As in my proposed research work, the standard IEEE test system has only one diesel
generator. To calculate its generation cost, we would use equation (17–19) [9], as follows:

C p  a m PGm  bm PGm  C m      (17 )

2

CQ  a m QGm  bm PGm  C m      (18)

2

CT  C P  CQ      (19)

where, am, bm, and Cm are the cost coefficients of the generators placed at the mth bus, and the
real power generated at the mth bus is represented by QGm. Moreover, CP, CQ, and CT are the
active, reactive, and total power generation costs, respectively [9].

4.2.3 Formulation of Constraints

Under the subject of optimal power flow, we would have to address two types of constraints:
equality and inequality. The equality constraints would be calculated with the help of
equations (20–21) [9], as follows:
NB NB
PL  P r UPFC   Vm Vn Ymn cos mn   mn       (20)
m 1 n 1
NB NB
QL  Q r UPFC   Vm Vn Ymn sin  mn   mn       (21)
m 1 n 1

For further analysis, we would have to consider three other inequality constraints in the
following manner:

i. Generator Constraints

For the fulfilment of economic dispatch as well as to get rid of synchronous loss, we would
have to limit the active and reactive power generation of the installed generator. This
objective would be accrued with the help of an inequality (22) [9], as follows:
min
PGm  Pm  PGm
max
22
min
QGm  Qm  PGm
max

where, m = 1, 2, 3, …………………. NG.

ii. Transmission Line Constraints

As for the safe operation of transmission lines, we would have to regulate power flow in
accordance with the inequality (23) [9], as follows:

S Lm  S Lm
max
     (23)

13
where, m = 1, 2, 3, …………………. NTL.

iii. Load Bus Constraints

To ensure the smooth running of the installed equipment, our system should be free of
fluctuations. It would easily be achieved by considering inequality (24) [9], as follows:
min
VLm  VLm  VLm
max
     (24)

where, m = 1, 2, 3, …………………. ND.

4.3 Result Compilation

As I adopted quantitative research methodology, result accumulation would be mandatory.

To compile optimal results, we would have to apply a Modern Metaheuristic-Based
Algorithm named Firefly Algorithm (FA) [14]. According to a reference, "FA is found to be
superior over other algorithms in the sense that it could handle multimodal problems more
naturally and efficiently" [14]. This FA algorithm would be launched over the proposed
research work in the following steps:

1st

Each firefly would be represented with the help of equation (25) [14], as follows:

 
 m  1m ,  2m ,..........,  mNB      (25)

2nd

To limit the vector space as represented by equation (25), we would consider all the
constraints as follows:

V min   V  V max       (26)

where, v = 1, 2, 3, ………., NB.

3rd

To execute the algorithm initially, we would have to generate the positions of the fireflies
from a uniform distribution by using equation (27) [14], as follows:

 
Vm  V min   V max   V min  * rand      (27)

where, rand = random number with values between 0 and 1.

14
4th

The brightness or intensity of the mth firefly(Im) would be calculated with the help of
equation (28) [14], as follows:

I m  Fitness m       (28)

5th

The degree of attractiveness between mth and nth fireflies would be found with the help of
equation (29) [14], as follows:

 m,n   max,m,n   min,m,n exp  m rm2,n    min,m,n      (29)

where,

  
NB
2
r m,n   m   n  k
m   kn
V 1

rm,n = cartesian distance between mth and nth firefly.

γ = absorption parameter is actually a constant, whose value would be a function. of dynamic
range of the search space [14].

k = number of iterations.

and, for the execution we would set: βmin = 0.2, and, βmax = 1 [14].

6th

At this stage, the brightness or intensity and the degree of attractiveness of each firefly would
be calculated with the help of equation (30) as follows:

 m k    m k  1   m,n  n k  1   m k  1   rand  0.5      (30)

where,

α = random movement factor is a constant, whose value depends on the dynamic range of the
solution space.

7th

This would be the final stage, where we would transform the objective functions (Voltage
profile improvement, power profile improvement, UPFC installation cost, generator or fuel
cost) into intensity functions [14]. As in the case of an optimal power flow problem or power
loss reduction function, it would be transformed by using equations (31-32) [14], as follows:

15
MaxI m  
1
     (31)
1  PL

MaxI m  
1
     (32)
1  QL

where,

Im represents intensity function, and values of PL and QL would be determined from

equations (12-13).

Similarly, we would transform voltage profile improvement, UPFC installation cost, and
generation cost objectives, which have been represented by equations (10), (14) and (19),
respectively, into respective intensity functions (Im) with the help of equations (33), (34) and
(35) as follows:

MaxI m   VPI m      (33)

MaxI m  
1
     (34)
1  CUPFC

MaxI m  
1
     (35)
1  CT

At this stage, we would obtain different values of the objective functions from equations (31–
35) in the form of graphs by mounting UPFC at various locations.

5. Projection of Conclusion
At the culmination of my proposed research work, in perspective of all the compiled results, a
conclusion would be drawn regarding the best optimal location of UPFC while addressing all
of the four (04) problems with the help of a modern optimization technique named Firefly
Optimization. Most probably, we will stumble upon the most promising results when UPFC
is mounted at the receiving end.

16
6. Suggested Time Frame

LITERATURE EXPERIMENTAL
THESIS WRITING &
REVIEW WORK
DISSERTATION
& PROPOSAL (SIMULATION)
DEFENCE
DEFENCE

FALL 2023 FALL 2024 FALL 2025

START END

SPRING 2024 SPRING 2025

PROJECTION OF RESULT ANALYSIS

TEST MODEL AND EVALUATIONS

7. Limitations of my research
To the best of my knowledge, the main highlighted problem would be resolved after the
culmination of my proposed research work. But after in-depth analysis, it would create a
further research appetite, which cannot be fulfilled under the limited time frame of a PhD. I
chose the realm of this research for only one FACT device named UPFC and only one
modern optimization technique named FA. The proposed research would be much more
promising if various FACTS devices were incorporated into the IEEE test system, along with
a comparative analysis of various modern optimization techniques. So, even after the
culmination of this proposed research work, one would not be able to draw a comparative
analysis among various FACTS devices as well as among various modern optimization
techniques.

8. Implications of my proposed research work

After successful conduct, this proposed research work would lay down a foundational
platform for all future researchers that would be free of research gaps, lack of clarity, and
lack of applicability. And they would further extend the realm of this proposed research work
by working around the limitations.

17
9. References
[1] A. A. Shaukat, S. Karim, A. Shabeer and M. Riaz, "Comparative Analysis of
Various FACT Controllers for Power System Stability Improvement," 2020 3rd
International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies
(iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 2020, pp. 1-8, doi:
10.1109/iCoMET48670.2020.9074112.

[2] Mirsaeidi, S.; Devkota, S.; Wang, X.; Tzelepis, D.; Abbas, G.; Alshahir, A.; He, J.
“A Review on Optimization Objectives for Power System Operation Improvement
Using FACTS Devices,” Energies 2023, 16, 161, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16010161.

[3] S. Das, M. Shegaonkar, M. Gupta and P. Acharjee, "Optimal placement of UPFC

across a transmission line considering techno-economic aspects with physical
limitation," 2017 7th International Symposium on Embedded Computing and System
Design (ISED), Durgapur, India, 2017, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ISED.2017.8303934.

[4] A. Lashkar Ara, A. Kazemi and S. A. Nabavi Niaki, "Multiobjective Optimal

Location of FACTS Shunt-Series Controllers for Power System Operation Planning,"
in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 481-490, April 2012, doi:
10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2176559.

[5] S. K. Dheebika and R. Kalaivani, "Optimal location of SVC, TCSC and UPFC
devices for voltage stability improvement and reduction of power loss using genetic
algorithm," 2014 International Conference on Green Computing Communication and
Electrical Engineering (ICGCCEE), Coimbatore, India, 2014, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/ICGCCEE.2014.6922316.

[6] A. S. Siddiqui and T. Deb, "A gravitation based search algorithm for improvement
of maximum power transfer by optimal placement of UPFC," 2014 Innovative
Applications of Computational Intelligence on Power, Energy and Controls with their
impact on Humanity (CIPECH), Ghaziabad, India, 2014, pp. 216-220, doi:
10.1109/CIPECH.2014.7019079.

[7] J. S. Amirtham and V. Uma, "Optimal location of unified power flow controller
enhancing system security," 2016 Second International Conference on Science
Technology Engineering and Management (ICONSTEM), Chennai, India, 2016, pp.
326-331, doi: 10.1109/ICONSTEM.2016.7560971.

[8] K. M. Metweely, G. A. Morsy and R. A. Amer, "Optimization of optimal power

flow problems with FACTS devices using PSO technique," 2017 Nineteenth
International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Cairo, Egypt,
2017, pp. 181-189, doi: 10.1109/MEPCON.2017.8301182.

[9] S. Das, M. Shegaonkar, M. Gupta and P. Acharjee, "Optimal placement of UPFC

across a transmission line considering techno-economic aspects with physical

18
limitation," 2017 7th International Symposium on Embedded Computing and System
Design (ISED), Durgapur, India, 2017, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ISED.2017.8303934.

[10] A. A. Bhandakkar and L. Mathew, "Optimal placement of unified power flow

controller and hybrid power flow controller using optimization technique," 2018
IEEE/IAS 54th Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference
(I&CPS), Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 2018, pp. 1-7, doi:
10.1109/ICPS.2018.8370001.

[11] J. S. Bhati and S. Vadhera, "Optimal Placement and Parameter Sizing of Unified
Power Flow Controller using Meta-Heuristic Techniques," 2020 First IEEE
International Conference on Measurement, Instrumentation, Control and Automation
(ICMICA), Kurukshetra, India, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/ICMICA48462.2020.9242675.

[12] P. Singh, R. Tiwari, A. K. Singh and V. Sangwan, "Optimal Allocation and

Comparative Investigation of Unified Power Flow Controller using ASMO," 2020
International Conference on Power Electronics & IoT Applications in Renewable
Energy and its Control (PARC), Mathura, India, 2020, pp. 497-502, doi:
10.1109/PARC49193.2020.236663.

[13] Raheel Muzzammel1, Rabia Arshad1, Sobia Bashir2, Uzma Mushtaq3,4, Fariha
Durrani1, Sadaf Noshin4 “Comparative analysis of optimal power flow in renewable
energy sources based microgrids” International Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering (IJECE) Vol. 13, No. 2, April 2023, pp. 1241~1259 ISSN: 2088-8708,
DOI: 10.11591/ijece. v13i2.pp1241-1259.

[14] R. Selvarasu and M. S. Kalavathi, "UPFC placement: A new self-adaptive firefly

algorithm," IET Chennai Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Energy and
Intelligent Systems (SEISCON 2013), Chennai, 2013, pp. 204-209, doi:
10.1049/ic.2013.0315.

19