2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics

17-19 July 2011, Bandung, Indonesia

E7 - 4

Optimal Placement of UPFC for Maximizing System

Loadability and Minimizing Active Power Losses in
System Stability Margins by NSGA-II
I Made Wartana#1, Ni Putu Agustini*2
#*

Electrical Department, National Institute of Technology (ITN)

Jl. Bend. Sigura-gura No. 2 Malang 65145, East-Java, Indonesia
1

m.wartana@hotmail.com
niputu.agustini@yahoo.co.id

Abstract This paper presents application of a new variant of

Genetic Algorithm specialized in multi-objective optimizations
problem known as Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
(NSGA-II) to obtain optimal allocation of one type of FACTS
controllers namely: Unified Power Flow Controllers (UPFC) for
improving the performance of the power system. Two objective
functions are simultaneously considered as the indexes of the
system performance; maximization of system loadability in
system stability margins (voltage stability index and line stability
factor) and minimization of active power losses in transmission
line by considering installation cost of UPFC controller. The
UPFC controller are modelled and incorporated in the Newton
Raphson Power flow problem. Simulation studies are undertaken
on a standard IEEE 30-bus test system and a practical Java-Bali
24-bus of Indonesian system. Results demonstrate that the static
performances of the power system can be effectively enhanced
due to the optimal allocation of single UPFC controller.
KeywordsMulti-objective

optimization,
NSGA-II,
stability margin, system loadability, UPFC controller

I. INTRODUCTION
Power systems are becoming increasingly more complex
due to the interconnection of regional system and deregulation
of the overall electricity market. It has become imperative to
better utilize the existing power networks to increase
capacities by installing FACTS controllers [7]. The variables
and parameter of the transmission line, which include line
reactance, voltage magnitude, and phase angle are able to be
controlled using FACTS controllers in a fast and effective
way [12]. The benefits derived from FACTS include
improvement of the stability of power system networks, such
as voltage stability, line stability, small signal stability,
transient stability, and thus enhance system reliability.
However, controlling power flows is the main function of
FACTS [13]. Maximal system loadability can also be obtained
with the optimal location and parameter setting of FACTS
controllers [4, 19]. The maximum benefit of the FACTS
controllers depends greatly on how these controllers are
allocated in the power system: namely, on their location and
setting [1].

978-1-4577-0752-0/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

In the last decade, in the research arena of computational

intelligence, several cooperative and competitive stochastic
search techniques have rapidly gained popularity as efficient
optimization techniques. Such techniques include a hybrid
Tabu Search (TS) and Simulated Annealing (SA) [15],
Evolutionary Programming (EP) [18], Genetic Algorithm (GA)
[17], Bacterial Swarming Algorithm (BSA) [8], and Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) [10]. PSO techniques have been
formulated to solve optimal location and parameter settings of
single TCSC to increase power system loadability [19]. The
application of PSO technique for optimal location of multiple
FACTS controllers, taking into consideration the cost of
installation and the system loadability, has been reported [10,
18].
From the previous works, it can be concluded that the
problem of optimal location of FACTS controllers is generally
formulated as a mono-objective optimization problem.
Unfortunately, the formulation of FACTS location problem as
a mono-objective optimization is not quite practical [1]. While,
planners the power systems aim to take advantage of FACTS
controllers considering several objectives at the same time.
In this paper, an algorithm of the optimal placement of one
type of FACTS controllers, UPFC, is developed as a multiobjective problem to maximize system loadability within
system security and stability margins (voltage stability index,
and line stability factor) and to minimize the active power
losses of the transmission system by considering installation
cost of UPFC controller. In realizing the proposed objectives,
the suitable location of UPFC controller and its rated values
must be determined simultaneously using a new variant of
Genetic
Algorithm
specialized
in
multi-objective
optimizations problem known as Non-dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II).
The paper is organized beginning with an introduction,
followed by section 2 which presents the modelling of UPFC
controller. The problem formulation is proposed in section 3
which includes the definition of bi-objective functions and
problem security and stability constraints. Section 4 presents
the implementation of the NSGA-II algorithm. Some
interesting results are presented along with a detailed

where VL is the thermal and bus violation limit factor,

OLLi and BVVj represent the overloaded line factor and branch
the bus voltage violation factor, respectively; and is elaborated
II. UPFC MODELLING
in (10) and (11); Nl and Nb are the total numbers of
The UPFC controller has two voltage source inverters (VSI) transmission lines and load buses, respectively. In addition 1
sharing a common dc storage capacitor. It is connected to the is a load parameter of the system, which intends to locate the
system through two coupling transformers [6] as shown in Fig. maximum sum of power that the network is able to supply
1. The UPFC model is represented by one series voltage within the system security margin.
The load parameter 1 in (5) is defined as a function of a
source vs and by another shunt current source iSH. In this study,
UPFC has been assumed to be placed at bus-i and in line load factor f [8]:
connected between bus-i and bus-j [10]:
(7)
1 = exp[ f max
] f [1, max
f
f ]
j
j
v S = ( v p + vq ) e = rVi e
where is the coefficient to adjust the slope of the function,
(1)

max
iSH = (i p + iq ) e j i
and f is the maximal limit of f . The load factor f reflects

discussion in section 5. Finally, conclusions and major

contributions are summarized in section 6.

The equations of the apparent power injected by the UPFC

at bus-i and bus-j, while placed at bus-i, are Piju+jQiju and
Pjiu+jQjiu, respectively, and given as follow.

QLi ( f ) = f QLi

Piju = brViV j sin( + i j )

2
Qiju = brVi cos iqVi

Pjiu = brViV j sin( + i j )

Q jiu = brViV j cos( + i j )

(2)

Fig. 1 Model of UPFC

III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

As indicated, the goal of optimization is the optimal
placement of UPFC controller into power network in order to
maximize the system loadability within security and stability
margins and to minimize the active power losses in
transmission lines by considering the investment costs of
UPFC controller.
Therefore, the presented problem becomes a multi-objective
optimization problem that has bi-objective functions to be
optimized simultaneously, which can be denoted as:
(3)
Minimize F ( x, u ) = [ F1 ( x, u ), F 2 ( x, u )]

j = 1, ...., M
g ( x, u ) = 0
(4)
Subject to :
k = 1, ...., K
h ( x, u ) 0
where F is known as the objective vector, F1, and F2 are the
bi-objective functions to be optimized, x is the vector of
dependent variables, and u is the vector of control variables.
A. Maximize the system loadability within security margin
This objective is to maximize system loadability by
considering security constraints as given below:

Maximize F2 (x, u) = {1}

(5)

Nl

Nb

i =1

j =1

Subject to VL = OLLi BVVj

the variation of power loads PLi and QLi , which are defined as
[1]:
(8)
PLi ( f ) = f PLi

(6)

(9)

where i = 1, . , NL and NL is the total number of power

load buses. f = 1 indicates the base load case.
The indexes of the system security state consist of two
parts. The first part, OLLi, relates to the branch loading and
penalizes overloads in the lines. The value of OLLi equals to 1
if the jth branch loading is less than its rating. OLLi increases
logarithmly (actual logarithm) with the overload and it can be
calculated from [10]:
1;
if Pij Pijmax ,

(10)
OLLi =
Pij
max

exp OLL 1 max ; if Pij > Pij ,

Pij

where Pij and

Pijmax are the real power flow between buses

i and j and the thermal limit for the line between buses i and j
respectively. OLL is the coefficient which is used to adjust
the slope of the exponential function.
The second part BVVj in (11) concerns the voltage levels
for each bus of the power network. The value of BVVj is
defined as [18]:
if 0.9 Vb 1.1
1;
(11)
BVV j =
exp(BVV 1 Vb ) ; otherwise
where BVVj is the bus voltage violation factor at bus j and
BVV represents the coefficient used to adjust the slope of the
exponential function in the above equation. The equation
shows that appropriate voltage magnitudes are close to 1 pu
Similar to OLLi , the value of BVVj is equal to 1 if the voltage
level falls between the minimal and maximal voltage limits.
Outside the range, BVVj increases exponentially with the
voltage variation.
B. Minimization of Active Power Losses of the transmission
lines
This objective is to minimize the active power losses (Ploss)
in the transmission lines and which can be expressed as [1]:

Nl

g [V

F 2 ( x, u ) =

2
i

+ V i 2 2V i V j cos t ( i j ) .

k =1

(12)

Where, Nl is the number of transmission lines; gk is the

conductance of the kth line; Vi i and V j j are the
voltages at the end buses i and j of the kth line, respectively.
C. The UPFC controllers cost function.
The installation cost (IC) of UPFC controller has been
mathematically formulated and is given by [10,18].
(13)
F3 (x, u) = CUPFC ( f ) S 1000
where F3 ( x, u ) is the optimal installation cost of UPFC
controller in US$ , CUPFC(f) is the installation cost of UPFC
controller in US$/kVAR and f is vector that represents the
variable of UPFC controller. Based on the Siemens AG
Database [7,10], the cost functions for FACTS controllers are
developed. The cost for UPFC:
CUPFC = 0.0003S 2 0.2691S + 188.22

(14)

where; CUPFC are in US$/kVAR and S is the operating range

of the UPFC controller in MVAR.
(15)

S = Q2 Q1

where Q2 is the reactive power flow in the line after

installing UPFC controller in MVAR and Q1 is the reactive
power flow in the line before installing UPFC controller in
MVAR.
D. Dependent and Control Variables
In the two objective functions, x is the vector of dependent
variables such as slack bus power PG1, load bus voltage
Vm+1..Nb, generator reactive power outputs QG and apparent
power flow Sk; x can be expressed as:
(16)
xT = [ PG ,Vm+1...VN , QG ...QG , S1...S N ]
1

Furthermore, u is a set of the control variables, such as

generator real power outputs PG except at the slack bus PG1,
generator voltages VG, and the locations of UPFC controller,
L, and their parameter settings. u can be expressed as:
(17)
uT = [ PG2 ...PGm ,VG2 ...VGm , L, vS , iSH , f ]
The equality and inequality constraints of the Newton
Raphson Power Flow (NRPF) problem incorporating UPFC
controller are given in following subsection.
These constraints represent the typical load flow equations
as follows:
Nb

i =1
Nb

(18)

QGi = QLi + Vi V j (Gij sin ij Bij cos ij ); 1 = 1,2,3...N b (19)

i =1

where, Nb is the number of buses in the system.

The load factor f is constrained by its limits as:

1 f max
f

(23)

G. Power System Security Constraints

1) Fast Voltage Stability Index: Fast Voltage Stability
Index (FVSI) proposed by I. Musirin [3] is utilized in this
paper to assure the safe bus loading.
FVSIij =

2
4Z Q j
2
Vi X

(24)

The line that exhibits FVSI close to 1.00 implies that it is

approaching its instability point. If FVSI goes beyond 1.00,
one of the buses connected to the line will experience a
sudden voltage drop leading to the collapse of the system.
FVSI index incorporation in the controller assures that no bus
will collapse due to overloading.
2) Line Stability Factor: System Stability Index is also
assured by Line Stability Factor (LQP) proposed by A
Mohamed et al [11]. The LQP should be less than 1.00 to
maintain a stable system.
X X 2

LQP = 4
Pi + Q j
2
2
V V

i i

(25)

LQP assure the controller that no line is over loaded under

any grid condition.
IV. NSGA METHOD

E. Equality Constraints

PGi = PLi + Vi V j (Gij cos ij + Bij sin ij ); 1 = 1,2,3...N b

F. Inequality Constraints
The inequality constraints h(x, u) are limits of control
variables and state variables. Generator active power PG,
reactive power QG, voltage Vi, and phase angle i are restricted
by their limits as follows:
PGmin
i = 1,......,m
PGi PGmax
i
i

min
max
(20)
QGi QGi QGi
i = 1,......,m

min
max
Vi Vi Vi
i = 1,.......,Nb

i = 1,.......,Nb
0.9 i 0.9
The parameter settings of single UPFC controller are
restricted by their limits as follows:
vSmin vS vSmax
(21)
min
max

iSH
iSH iSH
The constraint of transmission loading Pij is represented as
max
(22)
Pij Pij ; ij = 1,......., Nl

H. NSGA-II
In principle, multi-objective optimization has a very
different nature with single-objective optimization. In single
objective, one attempts to obtain the best design or decision,
which is usually the global optimum [1]. But in the case of
multiple conflicting objectives, a typical multi optimization
problem produces a set of solutions which are superior to the
rest of the solutions with respect to all objective criteria but
are inferior to other solutions in one or more objectives [20].

Therefore we normally look for Trade-offs rather than

single solution, when dealing with multi-objective
optimization. These solutions are known as Pareto-optimal
solutions or non dominated solutions. Since none of solutions
in the non dominated set is absolutely better than any other,
any of them is an acceptable solution. The NSGA-II procedure
is shown in Fig. 2 [5]. Before explaining the main loop of
algorithm, two sorting technique used in this algorithm should
be described. These sorting techniques are defined as follow:

objective function [1]. Hence, the membership functions are

introduced to represents the goals of each objective function;
each membership function is defined by the experiences and
intuitive knowledge of the decision maker.
In this study, a simple linear membership function was
considered for each of the objective function. The
membership function is defined as follows [1]:
1,
F i Fi min ,

max
Fi
(26)
Fi
Fi min < F i < F i max
i = max
min
Fi
Fi
0,
F i Fi max

min

max

Where Fi
and Fi
are the minimum and the
maximum value of the ith objective function among all nondominated solutions, respectively. The membership function
i is varied between 0 and 1, where i = 0 indicates the
incompatibility of the solution with the set, while = 1 means
full compatibility. For each non-dominated solution k, the
Fig. 2 NSGA-II procedure
1) In order to divide the population into separate fronts, fast
non-dominated sorting approach is applied, in which for each
solution two entities are calculated:
a) Domination count np, the number of solution which
dominates the solution p.
b) Sp, a set of solutions that the solution p dominates.
All the solutions in the first non-dominated front will have
their domination count as zero, and they are eliminated to get
the other fronts. It should be mentioned that, if m is the
number of objective function, dominance of chromosome x
against chromosome p is defined as:
For i = 1: m
fitnessi (x) fitnessi (p).
2) Thereafter for the purpose of maintaining sustainable
diversity in population, chromosomes in each front should be
sorted with crowded-comparison approach. For each
chromosome i, the quantity of crowding distance idistance is
the average distance between two points on either side of this
point along each objective. Therefore in comparison between
two solutions, we prefer solution with lower rank and in the
case of same ranks, the solution that is located in lesser
crowded region (with larger quantity of idistance) is chosen.
After implementation of these sorting procedures, half
population is directly chosen as Pt+1 like the elitist method.
Thereafter the new population Pt+1 is now used for tournament
selection, crossover and mutation to create the other half of
population so-called Qt+1.With calculation the merit of total
population, next iteration is commenced.
I. Best compromise solution
Once the Pareto optimal set is obtained, it is practical to
choose one solution from all solutions that satisfy different
goals to some extends. Due to the imprecise nature of the
decision makers (DM) judgment, it is natural to assume that
the DM may have fuzzy or imprecise nature goals of each

normalized membership function

k =

N obj
i =1

is calculated as:

k
i

N obj

k =1

i =1

(27)

k
i

where M is the number of non-dominated solutions and Nobj

is the number of objective functions. The function k can be
considered as a membership function of non-dominated
solutions in a fuzzy set, where the solution having the
maximum membership in the fuzzy set is considered as the
best compromise solution.
V. SIMULATION AND DISCUSSION
The NSGA-II algorithm is carried out on the IEEE 30-bus
test system [8], and a practical of Java-Bali 24-bus of
Indonesian grid system. The generators are modeled as PV
buses with Q limits; the loads are typically represented as
constant PQ loads with constant power factor, and increased
according to (8) and (9).
The decision variables considered, are the locations and
settings of UPFC. The number of UPFC and their constraints
are chosen at the beginning; where the number of UPFC is
fixed at one. The placement of UPFC is considered as a
discreet variable, where all the lines of the system (except line
with transformer) are selected to be the optimal location of
UPFC. The parameters of NSGA-II for all optimization cases
are summarized in Table I.
TABLE I
NSGA PARAMETERS

Population

Generations

100

50

Pool
size
25

Tour
Size
2

20

20

As a matter of fact, in order to evaluate the diversity

characteristic of the obtained solutions, the best compromise
solution points of Pareto front are compared with the optimal
solution of the correspondent objective optimized with the
maximum system loadability and the minimum active power

losses, and lastly the installation cost of UPFC controller is

calculated using (13), (14), and (15).
IEEE 30- bus system
The bus data and line data of IEEE 30-bus system are
taken from [14] and [16] and contain 41 lines. In decision
maker point of view, the installation of UPFC controller with
considering stability constraints in line 6-4 that improves the
SL up to 190.86 % of reference with the minimum active
power loss of 0.1270 pu is considered as the best compromise
solution in overall non-dominated solution as shown in Table
II. The best compromise of Pareto front is depicted in Fig. 3.
The voltage and line stability indices (FVSI and LPQ) are
used to assure grid stability at various levels of system
loadability is given in Fig. 4. The figures show that indexes of
FVSI and LPQ are much less than 1.00. These indicate that the
grid stability is maintained at various levels of system
loadability which ensures no bus will collapse due to
overloading and no line is over loaded under any grid
condition.
TABLE III
NSGA-II SOLUTION OF UPFC PLACEMENT IN IEEE 30-BUS SYSTEM FOR BIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

UPFC
controller

Max.
SL

Min.
Ploss

Location (line)
Shunt setting (pu)
Serie setting (%.)
SL (%.)
Ploss (pu)
IC (x106$.)

6-7
6-4
0.94
1.01
-8.36
-50.29
264.75
186.10
0.4303
0.1213
17.2890 13.2056

Best
comp.
solution
6-4
1.01
-41.05
190.86
0.1270
15.0133

0.45

Active Power Loss (p.u.)

0.4

Non-dominated solution
Best compromise solution
Maximum system loadability
Minimum active power loss

The results obtained from IEEE 30-bus systems is

compared with the results reported in [13] in Table III. From
this Table it can be seen that the best compromise solution of
system loadability of single UPFC controller proposed in this
study is higher than the result reported in [13], with IC of the
controller obtained in this study are much lower when
compared with the results reported in the reference. Stability
constraints and minimization of active power losses of
standard IEEE 30-bus test system is not reported in [13].
TABLE III
OPTIMAL IC, SL, AND MINIMUM NUMBER OF UPFC CONTROLLERS (N)
SOLUTION NEEDED IN IEEE 30-BUS SYSTEM.

Type of
FACTS

SL
(%)

IC
(106$)

UPFC

190.86
139

1
8

15.0133
276.7

Stability
index/factor
constraints
Yes
No

Result
in this study
reported in [13]

Java-Bali 24- bus Indonesian system

In order to give a more practical aspect to this study, the
proposed method has been applied on the realistic Java-Bali
24-bus Indonesian grid system. Single line diagram of the
system is shown in Fig. 5. The bus data and line data are taken
from the Indonesia Government Electrical Company and
which has 8 generators and 49 lines. The total active and
reactive load of the system is 10570.87 MW and 4549.23
MVAR, respectively. The maximum system loadability
(MSL), the optimal locations and parameter settings of UPFC
controller needed to attain MSL, minimum Ploss, and IC by
considering stability constrains are shown in Table IV. The
Pareto front, FVSI, and LQP are depicted in Fig. 6 and 7.
From these figures can be concluded that the NSGA-II is able
to solve the optimal location of UPFC controller formulated as
bi-objective optimization problem and applied to realistic
power system.

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
180

X: 190.9
Y: 0.127

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

System Loadability (%)

LQP (p.u.)

FVSI (p.u)

Fig. 3 Pareto front of the best compromise solution of UPFC for IEEE 30-bus
system
LQP
0.20
0.25
0.21
FVSI
0.17
0.10
0.13
0.09
0.05
0.00
0.01
-0.03
-0.07 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 -0.10
-0.11
-0.15
-0.20
Lines
Fig. 4 The best compromise solution of FVSI and LQP after UPFC placement
in IEEE 30-bus system

Fig. 5 Single line diagram of Java-Bali 24-bus Indonesian system

TABLE IV
NSGA-II SOLUTION OF UPFC PLACEMENT IN JAVA-BALI 24-BUS INDONESIAN
SYSTEM FOR BI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

UPFC
controller

Max.
SL

Min.
Ploss

Location (line)
Shunt setting (pu)
Serie setting (%.)
SL (%.)
Ploss (pu)
IC (x106$.)

13-14
22-23
1.00
1.07
-34.06
17.99
189.25
128.02
7.5621
1.3923
27.8050 46.8286

Best
comp.
solution
19-1
0.98
20.00
153.73
2.2780
11.9611

[2].
8

Active Power Loss (p.u.)

Non-dominated solution
Best compromise solution
Maximum system loadability
Minimum active power loss

[3].

[4].
5

[5].

3
X: 153.7
Y: 2.278

1
120

[6].
130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

System Loadability (%)

Fig. 6 Pareto front of the best compromise solution of UPFC for Java-Bali 24bus Indonesian system
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

LQP (p.u.)

FVSI (p.u)

0.40
FVSI
0.30
LQP
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
Lines

[7].

-0.10
-0.20

[8].

[9].
[10].

Fig. 7 The best compromise solution of FVSI and LQP after UPFC placement
in Java-Bali 24-bus Indonesian system

VI. CONCLUSIONS
A novel approach based on NSPGA-II has been presented
and implemented to optimal location and parameter settings of
UPFC controller in this study. The problem is formulated as a
real mixed continuous integer multi-objective optimization
problem, where two different objectives are considered
namely: maximize system loadability by maintaining security
and stability constrains (FVSI and LQP) and minimize active
power losses by considering installation cost of UPFC
controller. The optimal location and parameter settings of the
controller are performed for single use of UPFC controller. A
fuzzy-based mechanism is employed to extract the best
compromise solution from the Pareto front. The results show
that NSGA-II provides well distributed non-dominated
solutions and well exploration of the research space. Since
UPFC controller is expensive, this study will be further
extended to address the problem of optimal location of UPFC
controller to minimize installation cost of the controller.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank to the Indonesian
Government Electrical Company for supporting the data and
to Prof. F. Milano for the free PSAT software package.

[11].

[12].
[13].

[14].
[15].

[16].
[17].

[18].

[19].

REFERENCES
[1].

Benabid, R., Boudour, M., Abido,MA, Optimal location and setting

of SVC and TCSC devices using non-dominated sorting particle
swarm optimization, Electric Power Systems Research 79 (12), 2008,
pp. 1668-1677

[20].

D. Povh, Modeling of FACTS in power system studies, in: IEEE

Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 2, Januari, 2000, pp.
1435-1439.
Ismail Musirin, and Titik Khawa Abdul Rahman, Novel Fast Voltage
Stability Index (FVSI) for Voltage Stability Analysis in Power
Transmission system, Student Conference on Research and
Development Proceeding, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2002.
J.G. Singh, S.N. Singh, an S.C. Srivastava, Placement of FACTS
Controllers for Enhancing Power System Loadability, available on 07803-9525-5/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE.
Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan,
A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II,
IEEE Transactions On Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6, No. 2, April,
2002. pp. 182-197
L. Gyugyi, (1992) A Unified Power Flow Control Concept for
Flexible AC Transmission Systems, IEE Proceedings on Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, Part-C, Vol. 139, No. 4, July, pp. 323331.
L.J. Cai, I. Erlich, and G.Stamtsis, Optimal Choice and Allocation of
FACTS Devices in Deregulated Electricity Market using Genetic
Algorithms, IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and
Exposition, 1, 2004, pp. 201-207.
Lu, Z., Li, MS, Jiang.L., Wu, Q.H, Optimal Allocation of FACTS
Devices with Multi Objectives Achieved by Bacterial Swarming
Algorithm, IEEE Power and Energy Society 2008 General Meeting:
Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century,
PES, art. no. 4596320, 2008.
Milano Federico, Power System Analysis Toolbox Documentation for
PSAT, Version 2.6.1, May 25, 2010.
M. Saravanan, S. Mary Raja Slochanal, P. Venkatesh, Prince Stephen
Abraham. J, Application of particle swarm optimization technique for
optimal location of FACTS devices considering cost of installation and
system loadability, Electric Power Systems Research 77 (3-4), 2007,
pp. 276-283.
M.V.Suganyadevia and C.K.Babulalb, Estimating of Loadability
Margin of a Power System by comparing Voltage Stability Indices,
International Conference on Control, Automation, Communication
and Energy Conservation -2009, 4th-6th June, 2009.
N.G. Hingorani, Flexible AC Transmission, IEEE Spectrum, Vol.
30, No. 4, April, pp. 1993, 40-45.
Narain G. Hingorani and Laszlo Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS:
Concepts and Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems,
Wiley IEEE Press, December, 1999.
O. Alsac, B. Stott, Optimal load flow with steady state security,
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-93, 1974,
pp. 145-751.
P. Bhasaputra and W. Ongsakul, Multi-objective optimal placement
with multi-type FACTS devices by hybrid TS/SA approach,
International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy 4 (3-4), 2006,
pp. 294-319.
Ray D. Zimmerman, Matpower a Matlab Power System Simulation
Package", Version 4.0b4, May 21, 2010.
Stphane Gerbex, Rachid Cherkaoui, and Alain J. Germond, Optimal
Location of Multi-Type FACTS Devices in a Power System by Means
of Genetic Algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 16 (3),
2001, pp. 537-544.
Shaheen, H.I., Rashed, G.I., Cheng, S.J., Application of Evolutionary
Optimization Techniques for Optimal Location and Parameters Setting
of Multiple UPFC Devices, Third International Conference on
Natural Computation (ICNC 2007) IEEE Conferences Vol. 4, Haikou,
Hainan, China, 24-27 August, 2007, pp. 688 697.
Wartana I Made, Sasidharan Sreedharan, Optimal Placement of
TCSC for Optimizing system Loadability by Particle Swarm
Optimization, Proceedings of 2nd Makassar International Conference
on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (MICEEI), 27-29 October,
Makassar Golden Hotel, Makassar, Indonesia, 2010, pp. 159-166
Yang Liu, A Fast and Elitist Multi-objective Particle Swarm
Algorithm
NSPSO,
available
on
ieeexplore.
ieee.org/iel5/4648793/4664626/04664711, 2008.