nach oben

Electrical Engineering

Erschienen in:

Open Access 30.03.2022 | Original Paper

Multi-objective-based reactive power planning and voltage stability enhancement using FACTS and capacitor banks

verfasst von: Abdelfattah A. Eladl, Mohamed I. Basha, Azza A. ElDesouky

Erschienen in: Electrical Engineering | Ausgabe 5/2022

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Patentsuche

Aus

Abstract

Reactive power planning (RPP) and voltage stability improvement (VSI) consider two of the most important problems to meet a major challenge of the power system. In this work, a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) for RPP with objectives of cost minimization of the power losses, new reactive power (VAR) sources, maximization of the VSI, and enhancement of total transfer capacity (TTC) is introduced. Different optimization variables are considered including generator voltages, transformer tap changers besides load, and different operational constraints. The best compromise solution is determined through a fuzzy min–max approach. Comparison studies among capacitor banks, flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) or both as new VAR support sources to achieve better performance are explored. Moreover, the optimal allocations of switchable VAR sources are not determined in advance; instead, they are treated as control variables to improve the techno-economic operation of the network. Added to that many voltage stability indicators are presented, and their results are compared. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is examined on a modified IEEE 30-bus test system and South Egypt Electricity network where felicitous results have been acquired. The results expound on the effectiveness of the proposed approach compared with other optimization methods.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

$N_{{\text{b}}} $

Total number of buses

$N_{{{\text{cap}}}} $

Number of a possible installed capacitor bank

$N_{{\text{d}}} $

Number of load level duration

$N_{{\text{g}}} $

Number of generators

$N_{{\text{L}}} $

Number of transmission lines

$N_{{{\text{SVC}}}} $

Number of a possible installed SVC devices

$N_{{\text{T}}} $

Number of installed transformers

$N_{{{\text{TCSC}}}}$

Number of a possible installed TCSC devices

1 Introduction

With the great difficulties faced by modern power system operation, it is important to meet constantly increasing load demand and contingencies while maintaining reliable power delivery to the customers and keeping bus voltage boundaries. Due to incremental load demand, the power system is being operated under extremely stressful conditions, and this makes the system works near its stability limit. Therefore, a relatively small disturbance can change its state and becomes unstable [1]. Thus, it is imperative to improve power system stability to prevent load shedding, system collapse, and improve its security and reliability.

Many control actions can be taken in order to relieve system stresses [2]. These include changing the voltage setpoints of voltage-controlled buses via controlling the generator’s excitation or updating the setting of taps changing transformers and installing VAR sources with varying sizes and locations such as shunt capacitors, static VAR compensators, and FACTS devices. However, inadequate reactive power support may lead to voltage collapses and further to major power outages. So, it is essential to optimally allocate the new reactive power sources [3]. The techniques used for allocating the new reactive power sources can be generally divided into two methods. These are the index and optimization-based methods. The former depends on the priority list and sensitivity indexes to reduce solutions space, while in the latter, the conventional or heuristic optimization methods are used [4].

The target of RPP is the coordination of the existing VAR sources and optimally allocates the new sources taking into account the achievement of specific objective functions. These functions may include minimization of the costs of real power losses and additional reactive power supplies investment, enhancement of voltage stability, and improvement of voltage profile [4]. The new VAR sources could be used for enhancing system controllability resulting in the TTC enhancement [5]. Improving current electricity power production systems is far more reasonable than constructing new power plants, electrical power transmission, and distribution lines, which may take several years in addition to the high cost of installation and the difficulties of pollution control. Also, it may be claimed that the system congestion will be decreased, resulting in increased power system security. The transmission system will be more lucrative if current transmission assets are used to their full potential. The RPP problem is complicated due to overlapping objective functions, constraints, and control variables. In addition, there are a large number of uncertain parameters which are partially discrete and continuous.

Different conventional methods have been applied to solve the RPP problem. Among these methods are successive linear programming [6], mixed integer nonlinear programming [7], and branch and bound method [8]. However, due to the complex nature of the RPP problem, these methods are not feasible to find the global optimum solution. A variety of intelligence methods have been vastly applied to solve the RPP problem because of their robustness, effectiveness, and suitability to find out optimal solutions. Some researchers have been used these methods with the shunt capacitors as a reactive power source such as simulated annealing (SA) [9], genetic algorithm (GA) [10], evolutionary programming (EP) [11], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12] and [13], differential evolution (DE) [14] and [15], ant colony optimization algorithm [16], the gravitational search algorithm (GSA) [17], modified DE [18], random drift PSO [19], and modified crow search algorithm in [20], while the RPP problem was solved with FACTS using DE algorithm [21], improved DE [22], GSA [23], GSA with PSO [24], whale optimization algorithm [25], fractional-order Darwinian PSO [26], and quasi-oppositional with salp swarm algorithm in [27]. A multi-objective problem is introduced in [28] and [29]. PSO is present in [30] to solve single- and multi-objective. The above literature considered the locations of new VAR sources that were directly simply estimated or assumed by locating the new VAR sources at the weakest bus. Table 1 categorizes the reviewed literature and provides the novelties of the proposed work in comparison with other research studies.

Table 1

Categorizes the reviewed literature and provides the novelties of the proposed model in comparison with other researches

Ref	Year	Optimization algorithm	Objective(s)	VAR sources		Stability index	Proposed multi-objective	Determine location	VAR cost	Transformer ratio
Ref	Year	Optimization algorithm	Objective(s)	Capacitor’s bank	FACTS	Stability index	Proposed multi-objective	Determine location	VAR cost	Transformer ratio
[6]	1988	Linear programming	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	×	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[9]	1993	SA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	×	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	×
[11]	2004	EP	Min. (Losses and VAR cost and volt. deviation)	✓	×	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[13]	2008	Fuzzy adaptive PSO	Min. Losses / Min. volt. / Max stability	✓	×	L-index	–	Pre-defined	×	✓
[8]	2009	Branch-and-bound, mixed integer program	Min. VAR cost with a VSM constrained	✓	×	VSM	–	backward/forward Alg	✓	×
[10]	2010	GA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost and volt. deviation)	✓	×	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[16]	2011	Ant colony optimization	Min. Losses	✓	×	–	–	Pre-defined	×	×
[15]	2011	DE	Min. Losses / Min. volt. / Max stability	✓	×	L-index	–	Pre-defined	×	✓
[28]	2012	Modified non-dominated sorting GA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost) and Max stability	✓	×	L-index	Pareto optimal set	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[21]	2013	DE	Min. (Losses & volt. Deviation) & Max stability	×	✓	Static voltage stability index	Weighted method	Global best positions	×	✓
[17]	2014	Opposition-based GSA	Min. Losses / Min. volt. deviation / Max. stability	✓	×	L-index	–	Pre-defined	×	✓
[29]	2014	DE	Min. (Losses & VAR cost) & Max stability	✓	×	L-index	Pareto optimal set	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[22]	2015	New Improved DE	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	✓	–	–	New voltage stability index	✓	✓
[23]	2015	GSA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	×	✓	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[12]	2016	Simple PSO	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	×	–	–	Weakest	✓	✓
[14]	2016	DE	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	×	–	–	Refined heuristic process	✓	✓
[24]	2016	Evolutionary PSO	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	×	✓	–	–	Weakest	✓	✓
[25]	2018	Whale optimization algorithm	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	×	✓	–	–	VCPI for SVC power flow analysis for TCSC	✓	✓
[18]	2019	DE	Min. (Losses and VAR cost & volt. deviation)	✓	×	–	–	Weak voltage bus	✓	✓
[30]	2019	Artificial physics optimization and PSO	Min. (Losses and VAR cost and volt. deviation) and Max stability	✓	×	L-index	Weighted method	Pre-defined	×	✓
[7]	2020	Successive linear programming and GA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	×	✓	–	–	Pre-defined	✓	✓
[20]	2020	Modified crow search algorithm	Min. (operating cost and VAR cost)	✓	×	L-index	–	Loss sensitivity analysis, power flow analysis, modal analysis	✓	✓
[19]	2020	Random drift PSO	Min. Losses	✓	×	–	–	Weakest	×	×
[26]	2021	Fractional-order Darwinian PSO	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	×	✓	–	–	VCPI for SVC Power flow analysis for TCSC	✓	✓
[27]	2021	Quasi-oppositional and salp swarm algorithm	Min. (Losses and VAR cost)	✓	✓	–	–	Line stability index	✓	✓
This Work	2021	MOGA	Min. (Losses and VAR cost) and Max stability & Max TTC	✓	✓	VSM and multi-indices	Pareto optimal set and fuzzy decision maker	Optimal location by MOGA	✓	✓

In this work, a MOGA is utilized to solve the RPP problem, where the minimization of the costs of losses and newly installed VAR sources is the first objective and the second objective is the maximization of the voltage stability. Also, the VAR sources are used to enhance TTC. By improving the voltage stability, the distance from the current operating state to the voltage collapse point is increased leading to secure operation. Therefore, the voltage stability margin (VSM) is used in this study as an indicator to check the system voltage stability. The results of the VSM are compared with those of the L-index, fast voltage stability index (FVSI), line stability index (LSI), new line stability index (NLSI), and new voltage stability index (NVSI) indicators. Different VAR sources are applied to compensate of the lack of reactive power. In addition, in this paper, the new optimal VAR sources allocations are considered as control variables and are resolved via GA. A modified IEEE 30-bus system and South Egypt Electricity network are used to examine the accuracy of the proposed approach.

The main contributions of the present work are:

A new application of MOGA to solve the RPP problem for minimization of the costs of power losses and the new installing VAR sources, maximization of the VSM, and increasing TTC.

A VSM indicator is proposed and its results are compared with those of the L-index, FVSI, LSI, NLSI, and NVSI indicators.

Multi-type of VAR sources with a detailed model of each type are presented.

The optimal allocations of new VAR sources are considered as control variables instead of locating them at the weakest buses or lines.

The remnant of the paper is organized as follows: The modeling of the new VAR sources is described in Sect. 2. Section 3 describes the multi-objective RRP problem formulation. The multi-objective RPP solution algorithm proposed for solving the RPP is presented in Sects. 4 and 5. Section 6 provides test results and discussion. Section 6 conclusions are presented.

2 Modeling of new VAR sources

In this section, the models of different VAR sources used in this work are presented. For static applications, the VAR sources can be modeled by two methods: (i) impedance insertion model (IIM), and (ii) power injection model (PIM) [31].

2.1 Modeling of capacitor banks

Shunt capacitors are employed as VAR sources in the power system. In addition to the availability of fixed capacitor banks, there are also variable capacitor banks which are achieved using switched capacitors [32]. According to the mechanism of varying the values of variable capacitor banks, the achieved MVAR from them is in steps, and therefore, the VAR source size is represented as a discrete not continuously variable. Figure 1. shows the modeling of capacitor bank, while the injected power at bus $i $ is:

$$ Q_{c.i} = B_{c,i} V_{i}^{2} $$

(1)

2.2 Modeling of FACTS devises

FACTS devices are used for controlling the power flow, voltage enhancement, decreasing the losses and enhancing transmission lines loadability [33]. There are many types of FACTS that can be installed in the power system. Static var compensator (SVC) and thyristor-controlled series compensators (TCSC) are two of the suitable approaches to be chosen according to our purpose, voltage stability, and reactive power support enhancement. In addition, they have low investment costs, fast control responses, and increment in system loadability [31, 34].

2.2.1 Modeling of SVC

The SVC is modeled as a shunt variable susceptance that injects reactive power added at variable bus locations [32]. Figure 2a shows the basic structure of the SVC, while the model of the SVC is shown in Fig. 2b and the injected power at bus $i $ is:

$$ S_{svc,i} = B_{svc,i} V_{i}^{2} $$

(2)

2.2.2 Modeling of TCSC

The TCSC is a capacitive reactance compensator consisting of a series thyristor-controlled reactor shunted by a capacitor bank [35]. Figure 3a shows a schematic impersonation of a TCSC connected in a transmission line between bus i and j of the power system, while Fig. 3b shows the modeling of TCSC. The TCSC as a power injection model is shown in Fig. 3c.

According to Fig. 3c, four injected powers can be represented as [1]:

$$\begin{aligned} P_{TCSC,i} &= \left| {V_{i} } \right|^{2} \Delta G_{ij} - \left| {V_{i} } \right|\left| {V_{j} } \right|\\ & \quad \times [\Delta G_{ij} \cos \left( {\delta_{ij} } \right) + \Delta B_{ij} \sin (\delta_{ij} )]\end{aligned} $$

(3)

$$\begin{aligned} Q_{TCSC,i} &= - \left| {V_{i} } \right|^{2} \Delta B_{ij} - \left| {V_{i} } \right|\left| {V_{j} } \right|\\& \quad \times [\Delta G_{ij} \sin \left( {\delta_{ij} } \right) - \Delta B_{ij} \cos (\delta_{ij} )] \end{aligned}$$

(4)

$$\begin{aligned} P_{TCSC,j} &= \left| {V_{j} } \right|^{2} \Delta G_{ij} - \left| {V_{i} } \right|\left| {V_{j} } \right|\\& \quad \times [\Delta G_{ij} \cos \left( {\delta_{ij} } \right) - \Delta B_{ij} \sin (\delta_{ij} )] \end{aligned}$$

(5)

$$ \begin{aligned} Q_{TCSC,j} &= - \left| {V_{i} } \right|^{2} \Delta B_{ij} + \left| {V_{i} } \right|\left| {V_{j} } \right|\\& \quad \times [\Delta G_{ij} \sin \left( {\delta_{ij} } \right) + \Delta B_{ij} \cos (\delta_{ij} )] \end{aligned}$$

(6)

where $P_{TCSC,i} , Q_{TCSC,i} , P_{TCSC,j} , $ and $Q_{TCSC,j}$ are power injections (positive or negative) due to installing the TCSC in a branch $(i $‐$j)$. Also, $\Delta G_{ij}$ and $\Delta B_{ij}$ depend on TCSC reactance and are given as [1]:

$$ \Delta G_{ij} = \frac{{ - X_{TCSC} R_{ij} \left( {X_{TCSC} - 2X_{ij} } \right)}}{{\left( {R_{ij}^{2} + X_{ij}^{2} } \right)\left[ {R_{ij}^{2} + \left( {X_{ij} - X_{TCSC} } \right)^{2} } \right]}} $$

(7)

$$ \Delta B_{ij} = \frac{{X_{TCSC} \left( {R_{ij}^{2} - X_{ij}^{2} + X_{TCSC} X_{ij} } \right)}}{{\left( {R_{ij}^{2} + X_{ij}^{2} } \right)\left[ {R_{ij}^{2} + \left( {X_{ij} - X_{TCSC} } \right)^{2} } \right]}} $$

(8)

3 Problem formulation

The RPP problem is a mathematical formulation, which can be simply considered as they endeavor to have an optimal solution for objective function through a set of controllable variables. MOGA is used in this study with different conflicting goals. These include the minimization of new VAR sources or losses costs, VSI, and TTC enhancement. The ultimate goal of a MOGA is to identify solutions in the Pareto optimal set [36].

3.1 Objective function

There are different objective functions that are handled in the RPP problem. These are:

3.1.1 Active power losses cost

The first objective is the minimization of active power losses cost $\left( {{ }Wc{ }} \right)$ of the power system and is calculated as [28]:

$$ Wc = \mathop \sum \limits_{{i \in N_{d} }} h_{l} d_{l} P_{loss,i} $$

(9)

$$ P_{loss, i} = { }\mathop \sum \limits_{{j \in N_{L} }} G_{ij} \left[ {V_{i}^{2} + V_{j}^{2} - 2V_{i} V_{j} \cos \left( {\delta_{ij} } \right)} \right] $$

(10)

3.1.2 VAR cost

The second goal in the RPP problem is the minimization of the new VAR sources investment costs (${ }IC_{VAR} )$ and is formulated as:

$$\begin{aligned} IC_{VAR}& = \mathop \sum \limits_{{i \in N_{SVC} }} C_{svc,i} \times S_{SVC,i}\\&\quad + \mathop \sum \limits_{{l \in N_{TCSC} }} C_{TCSC,l} \times S_{TCSC,l} + \mathop \sum \limits_{{i \in N_{cap} }} C_{Cap,i} \end{aligned}$$

(11)

Equation (9) consisting of three parts represents the costs of the SVC, TCSC, and capacitor banks [31], respectively, where

$$ C_{svc} = 0.0003S_{SVC}^{2} - 0.3051S_{SVC} + 127.38 $$

(12)

$$ C_{TCSC} = 0.0015S_{TCSC}^{2} - 0.7131S_{TCSC} + 153.57 $$

(13)

$$ C_{Cap} = C_{F} + C_{c} Q_{c} $$

(14)

where ${\text{C}}_{{\text{F}}} = 1000{{ \$ }}$ and ${\text{C}}_{{\text{c}}} = 3 \times 10^{4} {{ \$ }}/{\text{MVAR}}$ [28].

The annual installing cost of VAR sources is given by [31]

$$ AIC_{VAR} = IC_{VAR} { }\frac{{ir{ }\left( {{ }1 + ir} \right)^{LT} }}{{\left( {{ }1 + ir} \right)^{LT} - 1}} $$

(15)

3.1.3 Enhancement of power system voltage stability

Voltage stability is related to the “ability of a power system to maintain acceptable voltages at all buses under normal conditions and after being subjected to a disturbance” [3]. The P–V curves are used to determine the loading margin of a power system and can be built at a base case by increment the power system load gradually until reaching the voltage collapse point, the nose of the PV curve, as shown in Fig. 4. The per-unit loading distance between the base case and voltage collapse loading is called the VSM, which can be calculated as [37]:

$$ VSM = P_{D, max} - P_{D} $$

(16)

A greater VSM implies a more secure power system and therefore guarantees that not any relatively small disturbance leads to instability of the system and the system is operating far from the voltage instability margin.

Moreover, the L-index is determined to be another approximate measure of the voltage stability. Its value is ranging from zero to one and is based on load flow analysis. The bus with the highest L-index value is the weakest bus in the system. It is calculated according to equations [28]:

$$ \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {I_{G} } \\ {I_{L} } \\ \end{array} } \right| = ~\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {Y_{{GG}} } & {Y_{{GL}} } \\ {Y_{{LG}} } & {Y_{{LL}} } \\ \end{array} } \right|\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {V_{G} } \\ {V_{L} } \\ \end{array} } \right| $$

(17)

where $I_{G}$,$ V_{G} $: The currents and voltage at generator buses, respectively,

$I_{L}$,$ V_{L}$: The currents and voltage at load buses, and $Y_{GG} , Y_{GL} , Y_{LG} , Y_{LL}$: The elements of Y_bus admittance matrix.

Rearranging Eq. (17), we get

$$ \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {V_{L} } \\ {I_{G} } \\ \end{array} } \right| = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {Z_{LL} F_{LG} } \\ {K_{GL} Y_{GG} } \\ \end{array} } \right|\left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {I_{L} } \\ {V_{G} } \\ \end{array} } \right| $$

(18)

where

$$ F_{LG} = - \left| {Y_{LL} } \right|^{ - 1} \left| {Y_{LG} } \right| $$

(19)

The L-index of bus $j_{th}$ is given as [28]:

$$ L_{j} = \left| {1 - \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{{N_{g} }} F_{ji} \frac{{V_{i} }}{{V_{j} }}\angle \left( {\theta_{ji} + \delta_{ij} } \right)} \right| $$

(20)

where F_ji is the elements of F_LG matrix.

By minimizing L-index, the system will be a more secure system, and the system becomes able to overcome any disturbance that occurs on the system as much as possible.

In addition, FVSI, LSI, NLSI, and NVSI can be used as an indicator of voltage stability. FVSI is based on the concept of power flow through a single line. For a typical transmission line, the FVSI is calculated by [2]:

$$ FVSI_{ij} = \frac{{4Z_{ij}^{2} Q_{j} }}{{V_{i}^{2} X_{ij} }} $$

(21)

where $Z_{ij}$ is the line impedance, $Q_{j}$ is the total reactive power flow at the receiving end.

The line that gives the index value closest to 1 will be the most critical line of the system and may lead to the whole system instability. If FVSI goes beyond 1, a sudden voltage drop leading to the collapse of the system will be occurred at one of the buses connected to this line.

LSI is derived based on power transmission line concepts. The expression for the index is given as [3]:

$$ LSI_{ij} = \frac{{4X_{ij} Q_{j} }}{{V_{i}^{2} \sin^{2} \left( {\emptyset - \delta } \right)}} $$

(22)

where $\emptyset$ is the transmission line angle.

$$ \emptyset = {\text{ tan}}^{ - 1} \frac{{ X_{ij} }}{{R_{ij} }} $$

(23)

A line in the system is said to be close to instability when the LSI value is close to 1. On the other hand, if the LSI value is less than 1, the system is said to be stable.

NLSI is proposed to monitor voltage stability conditions and/or for voltage collapse prediction. The NLSI is given as [3]:

$$ NLSI_{ij} = \frac{{4Q_{j} }}{{V_{i}^{2} }} \left[ {\frac{{Z_{ij}^{2} }}{{X_{ij} }}\varepsilon - \frac{{X_{ij} }}{{\sin^{2} \left( {\emptyset - \delta } \right)}}\left( {\varepsilon - 1} \right)} \right] $$

(24)

where $\varepsilon$ is a switching function whose value depends on whether the angle difference, δ, is very small or not.

$$ \varepsilon = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 & {{\text{if}}\;\delta < \delta_{c} } \\ 0 & {{\text{if}}\;\delta \ge \delta_{c} } \\ \end{array} } \right. $$

(25)

When NLSI is less than 1, the voltage is stable. When its value comes closer to 1, the voltage comes nearer to collapse. The NLSI combines two existing voltage stability indices, the LSI and FVSI, taking advantage of the accuracy of the LSI and the fastness of the FVSI.

The NVSI provides a complete description of the system’s performance. NVSI is mathematically explained as follows [4]:

$$ NVSI_{ij} = \frac{{2X_{ij} \sqrt {Q_{j}^{2} + P_{j}^{2} } }}{{2X_{ij} Q_{j} - V_{i}^{2} }} $$

(26)

where $P_{j}$ is the total active power flow at the receiving end.

The value of NVSI must be less than 1 in all transmission lines to achieve a secure system operation. And, the closer its value is to zero, the system becomes more stable. The advantage of this index is that it relates both real and reactive power, whereas other indices relate only to the reactive power of the system.

3.1.4 Enhancemessnt TTC using new VAR sources

To identify the best allocation of VAR sources for TTC enhancement, the third objective function is stated as maximizing of $P_{m}$ value, which is computed as the sum of real power load at all buses and given as follows:

$$ P_{m} = { }\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{{N_{b} }} P_{Di} $$

(27)

3.2 Constraints

To ensure that the system operates in a stable and reliable state, many constraints must be satisfied. Also, these constraints guarantee that the obtained optimal solution is feasible for practical power system operation. They can be classified as equality and inequality constraints.

Active power balance and reactive power balance

$$ \begin{aligned} &P_{gi} - P_{Di} - V_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^{{N_{b} }} V_{j} (G_{ij} \cos \delta_{ij} + B_{ij} \sin \delta_{ij} ) = 0 ,\\&\quad i \in N_{b} \end{aligned}$$

(28)

$$ \begin{aligned} & Q_{gi} - Q_{Di} + Q_{ci} + Q_{ci}^{o} \\&\quad - V_{i} \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{{N_{b} }} V_{j} \left( {G_{ij} \sin \delta_{ij} - B_{ij} \cos \delta_{ij} } \right) = 0 \quad i \in N_{b}\end{aligned} $$

(29)

Voltage constraints

$$ V_{i}^{\min } \le V_{i} \le V_{i}^{\max } ,\quad i \in N_{b} $$

(30)

where $v_{i}^{min}$ and $v_{i}^{max} $ are 0.95 and 1.05 p.u, respectively.

Generator reactive power limit

$$ Q_{Gi}^{\min } \le Q_{gi} \le Q_{Gi}^{\max } , \quad i \in N_{g} $$

(31)

Slack bus active power generation limit

$$ P_{s}^{\min } \le P_{s} \le P_{s}^{\max } $$

(32)

Transmission line flow limit

The apparent power which flows in transmission lines must be less than the maximum allowable limit in order to avoid any damage in transmission lines.

$$ \left| {S_{l} } \right| \le S_{l}^{\max } , \quad l \in N_{L} $$

(33)

Transformer tap setting limit

The limit of the transformer tap setting is presented as:

$$ T_{K}^{\min } \le T_{K} \le T_{K}^{\max } , \quad k \in N_{T} $$

(34)

where $T_{K}^{\min }$ and $T_{K}^{\max }$ are 0.9 and 1.1 p.u with the step size 0.025.

Reactive power generation limit of VAR source

The new capacitor bank has a minimum and maximum limit, and it is expressed as:

$$ Q_{C,i}^{\min } \le Q_{C,i} \le Q_{C,i}^{\max } ,\quad i \in N_{cap} $$

(35)

where $Q_{C,i}^{\min }$ and $Q_{C,i}^{\max } $ are 0 and 5 MVAR with the step size of 1 MVAR.

The limits of SVC and TCSC

$$ S_{SVC,i}^{\min } \le S_{SVC,i} \le S_{SVC,i}^{\max } , \quad i \in N_{SVC} $$

(36)

$$ - 0.8X_{ij} \le x_{TCSCi} \le 0.2X_{ij} , \quad i \in N_{TCSC} $$

(37)

where $S_{SVC,i}^{min}$ and $S_{SVC,i}^{max}$ are -100 and 100 MVAR and have a continuous control, while the range of TCSC is between -0.8 and 0.2 of the reactance of the installation line.

4 Multi-objective RPP solution

RPP is a nonlinear optimization problem and can be formulated as:

$$ {\text{Minimizing}}/{\text{Maximizing}}\quad f_{i} \left( {x,u} \right){ }\quad i = 1,2, \ldots N_{obj} $$

(38)

Subject to $g\left( {x,u} \right) = 0{ }$ Equality constraints.

$h\left( {x,u} \right){ } \le 0{ }$ Inequality constraints.

where $f\left(x,u\right)$ is the objective function; $x$ is the set of the controllable variable; $u$ is the set of the state variable.

In general, there are two ways to solve multiple-objective optimization problems. The first way is done by combining the individual objective functions into a single composite function. Many methods have been used to solve the composite single objective problem such as weighted sum and ε-constraint. As an example in (32), the multi-objective optimization problem is converted to a single objective optimization problem by generating a composite objective F from a linear sum of multiple objective functions ${f}_{i}\left(x,u\right)$.

$$\begin{aligned} &\mathrm{Minimizing}/\mathrm{Maximizing F}={w}_{1 }{F}_{1}+{w}_{2 }{F}_{2} \\ & \quad where {\left\{\begin{array}{c}{w}_{1 },{w}_{2 } \ge 0\\ {w}_{1 }+{w}_{2 }=1\end{array}\right.}_{ }\end{aligned}$$

(39)

The existing single-objective optimization algorithms can be used to optimize the above objective function, and the weights (${w}_{1 },{w}_{2 })$ must be pre-set. This way may have undesirable consequences that were explicitly setting the weights, which introduces the designer’s preconceived capability about the relative trade-off between objectives. This may have a profound impact on design decisions.

The second way for solving the multi-objectives optimization problem is to search directly to determine the entire Pareto optimal set. The principle of an ideal multi-objective optimization technique is to define multiple tradeoff optimal solutions, which have a wide range of values for objective functions, and then select one of the solutions according to the requirement of the system operator. In this paper, MOGA has been used to solve RPP problem. The GA has many advantages, such as the ability to deal with complex problems and parallelism, use probabilistic transition rules not deterministic rules, support multi-objective optimization and work well on mixed discrete/continuous problems. Additionally, multiple offspring in a population act as independent agents, allowing the population to explore the search space in many directions at the same time [41]. A set of points are provided on the Pareto optimal front. The first objective is to minimize losses cost and installed VAR sources cost. The second objective is to improve voltage stability by increasing the VSM. The solution of the MOGA procedure is a set of points; at each point, we have a value for each objective. In the present paper, the fuzzy min–max approach is used to determine the best compromise solution. The fuzzy membership function ${MS}_{i}$ of ${i}^{th}$ objective function can be expressed as:

$${MS}_{i}= \left\{\begin{array}{cc}1 & \mathrm{if }{F}_{i}\le {F}_{i}^{min} \\ \frac{{F}_{i}^{max}-{F}_{i}}{{F}_{i}^{max}{-F}_{i}^{min}}& \mathrm{ if }{F}_{i}^{min}<{F}_{i} < {F}_{i}^{max}\\ 0 & \mathrm{if }{F}_{i}\ge {F}_{i}^{max} \end{array}\right.$$

(40)

where $F_{i}^{min}$ and $F_{i}^{max}$ are the minimum and maximum values of the $i^{th}$ objective function among all non-dominated solutions, respectively. For each non-dominated solution k, the normalized membership function ($MS^{k}$) is determined using:

$$ MS^{k} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{{N_{obj} }} MS_{i}^{k} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{k = 1}^{{M_{s} }} \mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{{N_{obj} }} MS_{i}^{k} }} $$

(41)

where $N_{obj}$ is the total number of objective functions, and $M_{s}$ is the number of available solutions. The best compromise solution is the one having a maximum value of $MS^{k}$.

5 Proposed solution algorithm

The proposed RPP algorithm based on MOGA is summarized in the following steps:

Step 1: Read the system data (bus, generator, branch, demand, etc.).
Step 2: Run power flow
Step 3: Check if there is an RPP problem in the network, if yes, identify the control variables. If no go to stop.
Step 4: Select the MOGA parameters: population size, number of generations, etc.
Step 5: Randomly initialize the population and set the generation count.
Step 6: Update system data according to RPP solving method and run power flow again.
Step 7: Evaluate the objective functions and check the system constraints.
Step 8: Perform GA process selection, crossover, and mutation and generate the population for the next generation.
Step 9: Repeat the steps from 6 to 8 and increment the generation count until the count reaches the maximum number of generations.
Step 10: If the stopping criteria are satisfied, stop and print the results.

The flowchart for the proposed algorithm is shown in Fig. 5.

6 Results and discussion

To present the effectiveness of the proposed approach, it is applied to the modified IEEE 30-bus system and South Egypt Electricity network.

6.1 Modified IEEE 30-bus test system

The modified IEEE 30-bus system [42] has six generators, 24 load buses, and 41 transmission lines, of which four branches (6–9), (6–10), (4–12), and (28–27) are with the tap changing transformer, and the system will be supported by eight new VAR source [43]. The initial value of generator voltage and setting of taps changing transformer are shown in Table 2. Due to the incremental loading of the system, the system suffers from stress. The results shown in Fig. 6 are gained by applying the power flow and assume this as the base case. From the figure, it is remarked that the voltage is violated on many buses. Bus 30 is the weakest bus, which has a voltage of 0.736p.u.

Table 2

Controller setting for the initial case and pre-VAR

source added

Item	Initial case	Pre-using new VAR source
v_g1	1.05	1.049
v_g2	1.04	1.048
v_g5	1.01	1.025
v_g8	1.01	1.00
v_g11	1.05	1.049
v_g13	1.05	1.05
T₁	1.078	1.025
T₂	1.069	0.925
T₃	1.032	0.950
T₄	1.068	0.900
Losses (MW)	10.31	8.987
Cost of losses ($)	5.419 × 10⁶	4.723 × 10⁶
L-index	0.4557	0.3255
VSM	0.1047	0.12
Min voltage	0.736 (30)	0.898 (30)

The problem is addressed with the possibilities available, i.e., changing the voltage setpoints of voltage-controlled buses and modulating the taps setting of taps changing transformers. The results are given in Table 2. Figure 7 shows the voltage at each bus in this case. It is observed also that the voltage is out of the limit at many buses, where the value of minimum voltage equals 0.898 p.u. at bus 30. So, there is an urgent need to strengthen the system with additional VAR sources.

Different cases are carried out including either using capacitor banks, FACTS, or a mixture between them for solving the RPP problem. In addition, there is a detailed view of the use of each case if the RPP is handled as a single objective using GA or multi-objective problems using MOGA.

6.1.1 Case 1: capacitor banks

Table 3 shows the control variables and results when the minimization of the cost or VSI is employed as a single objective and when they are adopted together as multi-objective. Figure 8 depicts the Pareto optimal front of total annual cost and VSM with a population size of 50 and 300 iterations.

Table 3

Control variables setting for case 1

Item	Initial case	Cost is an objective	Stability is an objective	Multi-objective (cost + stability)
v_g1	1.05	1.050	1.018	1.046
v_g2	1.04	1.044	1.007	1.035
v_g5	1.01	1.021	0.978	1.007
v_g8	1.01	1.018	0.970	1.003
v_g11	1.05	1.050	1.050	1.050
v_g13	1.05	1.050	1.050	1.050
T₁	1.078	1.000	0.900	0.975
T₂	1.069	0.925	0.925	0.925
T₃	1.032	1.025	0.925	0.975
T₄	1.068	0.925	0.900	0.900
Q₁	–	5 (21)	5 (30)	5 (26)
Q₂	–	4 (24)	5 (24)	5 (24)
Q₃	–	5 (28)	5 (23)	5 (29)
Q₄	–	5 (26)	4 (22)	5 (30)
Q₅	–	5 (22)	5 (29)	5 (19)
Q₆	–	4 (23)	5 (27)	5 (21)
Q₇	–	5 (29)	5 (25)	5 (22)
Q₈	–	5 (30)	5 (26)	5 (23)
Losses (MW)	10.31	7.296	7.852	7.307
Cost of losses ($)	5.419 × 10⁶	3.83 × 10⁶	4.13 × 10⁶	3.84 × 10⁶
Cost of VAR ($)	–	1.87 × 10⁵	1.92 × 10⁵	1.97 × 10⁵
Total annual cost ($)	5.419 × 10⁶	4.02 × 10⁶	4.32 × 10⁶	4.04 × 10⁶
L-index	0.4557	0.2964	0.2941	0.2887
VSM	0.1047	1.2158	1.7839	1.6529
Net saving	–	25.82%	20.28%	25.44%
Min voltage	0.736 (30)	0.97 (19)	0.961 (28)	0.991 (28)

When the optimization problem is handled with considering the cost, losses plus capacitor banks costs, as a single objective, the results show that the total cost is decreased from 5.419 × 10⁶ $ to 4.02 × 10⁶ $ with a net saving of 25.82%, while the voltage at all buses is within permissible limits, and the minimum voltage is 0.97 p.u at bus 19. Moreover, it is observed that the stability has been improved, and the VSM is increased from 0.1047 to 1.2158 after installing capacitor banks.

By comparing the value of the L-index in the case of using the total cost as an objective (0.2964) with the case of using the stability as an objective (0.2941), it has a very small change and therefore another indicator, VSM, is used to measure the voltage stability. For best VSM when the stability is the objective function, as shown in Table 3, the VSM has been increased to 1.7839, the minimum voltage is 0.961 at bus 19. It is noted that the losses are decreased to 7.852 from the initial value and the net saving is 20.28%. In a multi-objective case, a 25.44% net saving has been gained with the VSM equals 1.6529.

A comparison between GA and PSO for the total annual cost and VSM with respect to iterations is shown in Fig. 9 in the case of using capacitor banks only. As appear in this figure, although PSO achieves faster results, GA gives better results. It can also be noted that the single-objective optimization technique gives better results than the multi-objective technique, but at the expense of the other goal. Figure 10 shows a comparison between GA and PSO in the multi-objective case.

6.1.2 Case 2: FACTS

In this case, the FACTS devices are used as VAR sources instead of capacitor banks. Two different FACTS devices are installed. Four SVC and four TCSC are installed in the network, which satisfies the system stability. Table 4 presents the optimal allocations of installed FACTS devices and the control variables.

Table 4

Control variables setting of case 2

Item	Initial case	Cost is objective	Stability is objective	Multi-objective
v_g1	1.05	1.050	0.984	1.050
v_g2	1.04	1.049	0.974	1.045
v_g5	1.01	1.030	0.964	1.022
v_g8	1.01	1.018	0.955	1.011
v_g11	1.05	1.050	0.996	1.050
v_g13	1.05	1.050	0.998	1.050
T₁	1.078	1.075	1.025	1.000
T₂	1.069	0.925	0.925	0.925
T₃	1.032	1.025	0.900	1.025
T₄	1.068	1.000	0.925	0.975
SVC₁	–	0.444 (2)	15.3393 (30)	7.996 (30)
SVC₂	–	9.259 (24)	24.8394 (19)	1.086 (29)
SVC₃	–	4.622 (30)	25.2724 (24)	4.137 (26)
SVC₄	–	3.565 (10)	74.1720 (10)	0.025 (25)
TCSC₁	–	0.0114 (21)	0.0316 (10)	0.0332 (10)
TCSC₂	–	0.0031 (3)	0.3084 (36)	0.0003 (13)
TCSC₃	–	0.2534 (34)	0.3066 (37)	0.2754 (36)
TCSC₄	–	0.0173 (23)	0.1617 (13)	0.2457 (37)
Losses (MW)	10.31	7.895	8.405	7.66
Cost of losses ($)	5.419 × 10⁶	4.15 × 10⁶	4.42 × 10⁶	4.03 × 10⁶
Cost of SVC	–	3.32 × 10⁵	2.17 × 10⁶	2.46 × 10⁵
Cost of TCSC	–	5.19 × 10³	1.65 × 10⁶	2.4 × 10⁵
Cost of FACTS	–	3.37 × 10⁵	3.82 × 10⁶	4.86 × 10⁵
Total annual cost	5.419 × 10⁶	4.49 × 10⁶	8.24 × 10⁶	4.51 × 10⁶
L-index	0.4557	0.3036	0.1609	0.1875
VSM	0.1047	1.2959	3.8241	2.7348
Net saving	–	17.14%	− 57.04%	16.77%
Min voltage	0.736 (30)	0.950 (19)	0.95 (7)	0.95 (19)

With the cost is an objective, the net saving is about 17.14%, while when the objective is just to improve the voltage stability, the results demonstrate that the network is operated at high VSM (3.8241) and the total annual cost is very high (8.24 × 10⁶ $). For the multi-objective case, the VSM is increased to 2.7348 with a net saving of 16.77%. It is remarked that this method is more expensive than using capacitor banks but the system is more secure.

6.1.3 Case 3: capacitor banks with FACTS

FACTS are playing an effective role in VSI of the system in an excellent way but the total cost is increased significantly. On the contrary, the voltage stability is improved to some extent at a lower cost using capacitor banks. Therefore, a hybrid assortment of capacitor banks and FACTS devices are used to solve the RPP problem to achieve a good level of voltage stability at a lower cost. The allocations of new VAR sources and other control variables are shown in Table 5. The net saving of 23.79% is gotten in case of the cost is a single objective with the VSM equals1.4239. When the objective is to just improve voltage stability, the VSM equals 3.7023 with a total cost of 8.67 × 10⁶ $. In a multi-objective problem, the net saving is 18.25% with a good VSM at 2.9505.

Table 5

Control variables setting of case 3

Item	Initial case	Cost is objective	Stability is objective	Multi-objective
v_g1	1.05	1.050	0.966	1.050
v_g2	1.04	1.045	0.956	1.045
v_g5	1.01	1.022	0.953	1.023
v_g8	1.01	1.019	0.952	1.020
v_g11	1.05	1.050	1.013	1.050
v_g13	1.05	1.050	0.991	1.050
T₁	1.078	1.025	1.000	1.000
T₂	1.069	0.925	0.900	0.950
T₃	1.032	1.050	0.900	1.025
T₄	1.068	0.975	0.900	1.000
Q_c1	–	5 (23)	4 (29)	5 (30)
Q_c2	–	5 (26)	4 (30)	3 (29)
Q_c3	–	5 (24)	4 (27)	4 (26)
SVC₁	–	10.812 (30)	99.277 (6)	6.362 (25)
SVC₂	–	0.222 (19)	62.661 (21)	8.448 (27)
TCSC₁	–	0.1553 (36)	0.3139 (36)	0.3126 (36)
TCSC₂	–	0.0022 (40)	0.0731 (14)	0.230 (37)
TCSC₃	–	0.0035 (28)	0.3156 (37)	0.0335 (10)
Losses (MW)	10.31	7.301	8.868	7.486
Cost of losses ($)	5.419 × 10⁶	3.84 × 10⁶	4.66 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶
Cost of Q_c	–	7.37 × 10⁴	5.91 × 10⁴	5.91 × 10⁴
Cost of TCSC	–	1.05 × 10⁴	1.733 × 10⁶	1.33 × 10⁵
Cost of SVC	–	2.06 × 10⁵	2.22 × 10⁶	2.99 × 10⁵
Cost of VAR source	–	2.95 × 10⁵	4.01 × 10⁶	4.91 × 10⁵
Total annual cost	5.419 × 10⁶	4.13 × 10⁶	8.67 × 10⁶	4.43 × 10⁶
L-index	0.4557	0.2623	0.169	0.1723
VSM	0.1047	1.4239	3.7023	2.9505
Net saving	–	23.79%	− 59.99%	18.25%
Min voltage	0.736 (30)	0.953 (19)	(7)	0.95 (19)

6.1.4 Using VAR sources to increase TTC

The different types of the new VAR source device are applied to solve the RPP problem with objectives of minimizing costs of losses and VAR sources, maximizing the voltage stability, and maximizing the total TTC.

Results are shown in Table 6. It is noted that increasing the TTC requires a greater cost. It is shown that before installing any VAR sources, the maximum TTC which could be achieved with allowable voltage at all buses is 291.16 MW. The total annual cost is 4.13 × 10⁶, 5.2 × 10⁶, and 4.46 × 10⁶ for three options of capacitors, FACTS, and hybrid assortment, respectively, where the TTC is 363.86, 566.97, and 516.85 respectively, and the VSM is 1.1697, 2.4, and 1.9284, respectively. It appears that employing the capacitor bank option alone is more acceptable from a purely economic sense because it provides the highest possible net savings. However, it is not a better option for increasing TTC or VSI, while using FACTS devices is the most effective technique to enhance TTC and VSI, but it comes with a high cost. It also indicates that employing a hybrid mix of capacitor banks and FACTS gives good results for enhancing TTC and VSM at a reasonable cost.

Table 6

Control variables setting solving RRP problem and TTC enhancement

Item	Without VAR devices	Using capacitors	Using FACTS	Using hybrid
Cost of losses	5.21 × 10⁶	3.98 × 10⁶	3.87 × 10⁶	3.92 × 10⁶
Cost of new VAR	–	1.53 × 10⁵	1.32 × 10⁶	0.54 × 10⁶
Total annual cost	5.21 × 10⁶	4.13 × 10⁶	5.2 × 10⁶	4.46 × 10⁶
VSM	0.9536	1.1697	2.4	1.9284
Installation VAR	–	4(24) 4(30) 3(21) 5(26) 4(9) 3(6) 4(29) 4(15)	SVC1, 6.22(12) SVC2, 13.95(30) SVC3, 17.82(21) SVC4, 22.63(19) TCSC1, 0.0138(10) TCSC2, 0.146(12) TCSC3, 0.003(23) TCSC4,0.0342(14)	CAP1, 5(30) CAP2, 3(21) CAP3, 4(9) TCSC1, 0.1482(10) TCSC2, 0.1232(36) TCSC3, 0.0331(23) SVC1, 12.54(24) SVC2, 19.78(29)
TTC	291.16	363.86	566.97	516.85
Min voltage	0.95 (30)	0.956 (30)	0.95 (23)	0.955 (29)

6.1.5 Comparison between fixed and optimal locations

Table 7 shows a comparison between the results in the case of assuming fixed locations of new VAR sources with those in case they are optimally located. If the locations of the new VAR sources are assumed to be fixed, then they will be located at the weakest buses which are 30, 29, 26, 25, 27, 24, 19, and 23, respectively, and the weakest line are 36, 13, 38, and 16, respectively.

Table 7

Comparison between fixed and optimal locations of new VAR sources

Item		Using capacitors	Using FACTS	Using hybrid
The case of fixed locations	Cost of losses	3.84 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.92 × 10⁵	6.21 × 10⁵	4.83 × 10⁵
	Total annual cost	4.04 × 10⁶	4.55 × 10⁶	4.41 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.5223	2.6104	2.7004
	L-index	0.2976	0.1865	0.1818
	Net saving	25.44%	16.04%	18.38%
	min. voltage	0.981 (19)	0.961 (19)	0.95 (19)
The case of optimal locations	Cost of losses	3.84 × 10⁶	4.03 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.97 × 10⁵	4.86 × 10⁵	4.91 × 10⁵
	Total annual cost	4.04 × 10⁶	4.51 × 10⁶	4.43 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.6529	2.7348	2.9505
	L-index	0.2887	0.1875	0.1723
	Net saving	25.44%	16.77%	18.25%
	min. voltage	0.991 (28)	0.95 (19)	0.951 (19)

From the table, it is remarked that in the case of the optimal locations of the new VAR sources, the results are better than initially assumed. For example, when the capacitor banks are used, the net saving is the same but the value of the VSM is better. In the case of using FACTS devices, both the net saving and VSM are better with values of 16.77% and 2.7348, respectively.

6.1.6 A comparison between multi-voltage stability indices

The MOGA is applied to solve the RPP problem with an objective to achieve a higher level of stability using capacitor banks, FACTS devices, or both of them. Table 8 illustrates comparison results using the VSM, L-index, FVSI, LSI, NLSI, and NVSI as an indicator of voltage stability.

Table 8

Comparison between different stability indicators

Item		Using a capacitor bank	Using FACTS	Using hybrid
The case of using VSM	Cost of losses	3.84 × 10⁶	4.03 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.97 × 10⁵	4.86 × 10⁵	4.91 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.04 × 10⁶	4.51 × 10⁶	4.43 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.6529	2.7348	2.9505
	L-index	0.2887	0.1875	0.1723
	FVSI	0.1624	0.1477	0.1468
	LSI	0.1689	0.1498	0.1499
	NLSI	0.1624	0.1477	0.1468
	NVSI	0.9655	0.8998	0.8898
The case of using L-index	Cost of losses	3.89 × 10⁶	3.8 × 10⁶	3.78 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.82 × 10⁵	9.07 × 10⁵	6.63 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.07 × 10⁶	4.5 × 10⁶	4.44 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.4196	2.6967	1.903
	L-index	0.2884	0.175	0.196
	FVSI	0.1728	0.1501	0.1598
	LSI	0.1801	0.1528	0.1623
	NLSI	0.1801	0.1528	0.1623
	NVSI	0.9628	0.9001	0.9123
The case of using FVSI	Cost of losses	3.94 × 10⁶	3.99 × 10⁶	3.95 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.58 × 10⁵	9.92 × 10⁵	5.52 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.1 × 10⁶	4.98 × 10⁶	4.5 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.2585	1.2666	1.2454
	L-index	0.3117	0.3007	0.3002
	FVSI	0.1628	0.1427	0.1498
	LSI	0.1681	0.1447	0.0.1523
	NLSI	0.1681	0.1447	0.1498
	NVSI	0.9886	0.9989	0.9885
The case of using LSI	Cost of losses	4.03 × 10⁶	3.98 × 10⁶	3.96 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.48 × 10⁵	1.08 × 10⁶	5.63 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.18 × 10⁶	5.06 × 10⁶	4.52 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.2007	1.2205	1.2112
	L-index	0.3158	0.2995	0.3025
	FVSI	0.1212	0.1572	0.1302
	LSI	0.1246	0.1620	0.1421
	NLSI	0.1212	0.1620	0.1421
	NVSI	0.9882	0.9773	0.09779
The case of using NSLI	Cost of losses	3.97 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶	3.93 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.53 × 10⁵	1.32 × 10⁶	6.11 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.12 × 10⁶	5.26 × 10⁶	4.54 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.236	1.2787	1.2689
	L-index	0.3126	0.2892	0.2912
	FVSI	0.1601	0.1838	0.1789
	LSI	0.1652	0.1861	0.1811
	NLSI	0.1652	0.1861	0.1811
	NVSI	0.9882	0.9727	0.9789
The case of using NVSI	Cost of losses	4.1 × 10⁶	3.9 × 10⁶	3.95 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	1.23 × 10⁵	1.27 × 10⁶	5.66 × 10⁵
	Total cost	4.22 × 10⁶	5.18 × 10⁶	4.52 × 10⁶
	VSM	1.1758	1.3953	1.322
	L-index	0.3005	0.2727	0.2881
	FVSI	0.2947	0.158	0.1628
	LSI	0.2989	0.1597	0.1698
	NLSI	0.2989	0.158	0.1628
	NVSI	0.9610	0.7035	0.844

6.1.7 Contingency analysis

The performance of the IEEE 30 bus system is studied under contingency. In this case, the stresses are represented by a three-phase fault, as the most severe fault. Table 9 shows the simulation results when the MOGA is applied to solve the RPP problem when a fault at line #30 and line #41 are considered. From the table, it is evident that in the case of line#30 outage and without installing new VAR sources, lines #27, #31, and #41 are overloaded not to mention that the voltage is below the limit in more than one bus and the minimum voltage is 0.863 p.u. at bus 30. After installing the new VAR sources, flow in all lines is at a limit, and the voltage at all buses and the VSM are improved. The same is true in the case of line #41 outage as well, without new VAR devices the line 27 is overloaded and the minimum voltage is 0.833 at bus 30. After the installation of new VAR sources, all constraints have been satisfied and the system becomes more secure. Moreover, it is noted that using capacitor banks and FACTS devices gives the best results as the cost is moderate and the stability is fairly good.

Table 9

Results of MOGA optimization for two severe contingencies in the IEEE 30 bus system

Item		Without VAR	Using capacitors	Using FACTS	Using hybrid
The case of line 30 outage	Cost of losses	5.15 × 10⁶	3.99 × 10⁶	4.45 × 10⁶	4.19 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	–	1.92 × 10⁵	1.01 × 10⁶	9.8 × 10⁵
	Total annual cost	5.15 × 10⁶	4.19 × 10⁶	5.45 × 10⁶	5.17 × 10⁶
	VSM	0.9536	1.4944	2.7129	2.0284
	L-index	0.3708	0.3074	0.1865	0.2468
	Installation VAR	–	5(30) 5(29) 4(24) 5(26) 5(23) 5(22) 5(21) 5(19)	SVC1, 5.22(30) SVC2, 8.55(29) SVC3, 17.18(26) SVC4, 4.53(25) TCSC1, 0.2885(36) TCSC2, 0.2524(37) TCSC3, 0.0323(10) TCSC4,0.0311(13)	CAP1, 4(30) CAP2, 1(29) CAP3, 3(26) TCSC1, 0.1482(36) TCSC2, 0.1232(37) TCSC3, 0.0331(10) SVC1, 2.96(25) SVC2, 33.78(27)
	Over loaded lines	27,31,41	–	–	–
	Min voltage	0.863 (30)	0.983 (19)	0.95 (23)	0.951 (23)
The case of line 41 outage	Cost of losses	5.22 × 10⁶	4.25 × 10⁶	4.6 × 10⁶	4.36 × 10⁶
	Cost of new VAR	–	1.97 × 10⁵	1.02 × 10⁶	5.43 × 10⁵
	Total annual cost	5.22 × 10⁶	4.45 × 10⁶	5.63 × 10⁶	4.9 × 10⁶
	VSM	0.8298	1.3042	1.5656	1.4997
	L-index	0.3948	0.3372	0.2833	0.2962
	Installation VAR	–	5(30) 5(29) 5(24) 5(26) 5(23) 5(22) 5(21) 5(19)	SVC1, 3.98(30) SVC2, 7.72(29) SVC3, 0(26) SVC4, 30.22(25) TCSC1, 0.1839(36) TCSC2, 0.1572(37) TCSC3, 0.0012(10) TCSC4, 0.02(13)	CAP1, 5(30) CAP2, 2(29) CAP3, 5(26) TCSC1, 0.1453(36) TCSC2, 0.137(37) TCSC3, 0.0001(10) SVC1, 0.79(25) SVC2, 19.6(27)
	Overloaded lines	27	–	–	–
	Min voltage	0.833 (30)	0.958 (28)	0.95 (30)	0.95 (30)

6.1.8 Comparison of simulation results

The results obtained by the proposed approach are compared to those reported in the literature. They are compared with the results of the opposition-based gravitational search algorithm (OGSA) [17], DE [14], and simple particle swarm optimization (SPSO) [12] when the cost has been formulated as a single objective function as seen in Table 10. It is observed that the net saving of the proposed method reaches 25.82%, while the corresponding value of OGSA equals 18.25%. The table also shows comparison results when the stability has been formulated as a single-objective function with those using DE [15], OGSA [17] and GA [11]. In addition, it demonstrates the results of MOGA compared to fuzzy adaptive particle swarm optimization (FAPSO) [13]. From the table, it is remarked that the proposed method gives better results and superior performance than other methods.

Table 10

Comparison between the results of the proposed method and those reported in the literature

Item	Single objective function (cost)				Single objective function (stability)				Multi-objective
Item	Ref. [17]^a	Ref. [14]^b	Ref. [12]^c	Proposed Method	Ref. [15]^a	Ref. [17]^a	Ref. [11]^a	Proposed Method	Ref. [13]^a	Proposed Method
Solution technique	OGSA	DE	SPSO	MOGA	DE	OGSA	GA	MOGA	FAPSO	MOGA
v_g1	1.05	1.1	–	1.050	1.0993	1.0951	1.05	1.018	1.073	1.046
v_g2	1.041	1.0942	–	1.044	1.0967	1.0994	1.0256	1.007	1.07	1.035
v_g5	1.0154	1.0745	–	1.021	1.0990	1.0991	1.0063	0.978	1.041	1.007
v_g8	1.0267	1.0765	–	1.018	1.0346	1.0991	0.9895	0.970	1.049	1.003
v_g11	1.0082	1	–	1.050	1.0993	1.0995	1.0584	1.050	1.066	1.050
v_g13	1.05	1	–	1.050	0.9517	1.0994	1.0806	1.050	1.072	1.050
T₁	1.0585	1.0844	0.9	1.000	0.9038	0.9728	1.05	0.900	1.02	0.975
T₂	0.9089	0.9	0.9	0.925	0.9029	0.9	0.9	0.925	0.99	0.925
T₃	1.0141	0.9924	0.9019	1.025	0.9002	0.9534	0.925	0.925	0.99	0.975
T₄	1.0182	0.9653	0.9	0.925	0.9360	0.9501	0.95	0.900	1.03	0.900
Capacitor Bank (Bus) (MVAR)	3.3 (10) 2.49 (12) 1.77 (15) 5 (17) 3.34 (20) 4.03 (21) 2.69 (23) 5 (24) 1.94 (29)	18.93 (10) 4.29 (24)	3.30 (7) 5.27 (15)	5 (21) 4 (24) 5 (28) 5 (26) 5 (22) 4 (23) 5 (29) 5 (30)	0.69 (10) 4.72 (12) 4.49 (15) 4.51 (17) 4.48 (20) 4.61 (21) 3.88 (23) 4.29 (24) 3.25 (29)	0.21 (10) 2.65 (12) 0.06 (17) 0.09 (24)	5 (30) 5 (29) 5 (26) 1 (25) 3 (24)	5 (30) 5 (24) 5 (23) 4 (22) 5 (29) 5 (27) 5 (25) 5 (26)	20 (10) 5 (15) 45 (19) 15 (24)	5 (26) 5 (24) 5 (29) 5 (30) 5 (19) 5 (21) 5 (22) 5 (23)
VAR cost ($)	1.46 × 10⁵	0	0	1.87 × 10⁵	1.72 × 10⁵	1.53 × 10⁴	9.36 × 10⁴	1.92 × 10⁵	4.16 × 10⁵	1.97 × 10⁵
Losses (MW)	4.50	4.67	6.84	7.30	7.07	5.92	10.55	7.85	4.95	7.31
Losses cost ($)	2.36 × 10⁶	2.45 × 10⁶	3.60 × 10⁶	3.83 × 10⁶	3.72 × 10⁶	3.11 × 10⁶	5.55 × 10⁶	4.13 × 10⁶	2.60 × 10⁶	3.84 × 10⁶
Total demand	283.4	–	–	343.2	283.4	283.4	–	343.2	–	343.2
Total cost ($)	2.51 × 10⁶	2.45 × 10⁶	3.60 × 10⁶	4.02 × 10⁶	3.89 × 10⁶	3.13 × 10⁶	5.64 × 10⁶	4.32 × 10⁶	3.02 × 10⁶	4.04 × 10⁶
Net saving	18.25%	16.56%	3.80%	25.82%	− 26.69%	− 1.82%	0.29%	20.28%	− 4.19%	25.44%
L-index before opt	–	–	–	–	0.2144	0.2144	0.1978	0.4559	0.1579	0.4559
L-index after opt	0.1407	–	–	0.2887	0.1246	0.1230	0.1807	0.2941	0.1238	0.2887
VSM	–	–	–	1.6529	–	–	–	1.7839	–	1.6529

^aFor all previous references, the voltage limits of the generators are 0.9 to 1.1. Also, the transformer tap-ratio setting and size of the capacitor are continuous variable control.

^bRef [14] depends on using the initial capacitor bank at buses 10, 24 with values 19, 4.3, respectively.

^cRef [12] Although there is value for the capacitor, it was not calculated within the total cost and the value of the losses was calculated only

6.2 South Egypt Electricity network

The proposed method is applied to the South Egypt transmission network [44]. A single line diagram is shown in Fig. 11. The power system in the south of Egypt is heavily loaded with load 4778.5 MW and 2801.8 MVAR. Before installing the new VAR sources, the voltages at several buses are out of the limit and the minimum voltage is 0.665 at Oyanat. Due to the heavy system loading, the new capacitance bank setting reached 80 MVAR. By installing the new VAR sources with optimal setting and location as given in Table 11, the network buses voltage becomes suitable for a secure operation.

Table 11

Results of MOGA optimization for South Egypt Electricity network

Item	Without VAR devices	Using capacitors	Using FACTS	Using hybrid
Cost of losses	8.25 × 10⁷	6.27 × 10⁷	6.13 × 10⁷	6.03 × 10⁷
Cost of new VAR	–	2.17 × 10⁶	9.64 × 10⁶	6.03 × 10⁶
Total annual cost	8.25 × 10⁷	6.48 × 10⁷	7.09 × 10⁷	6.633 × 10⁷
VSM	–	1.2744	1.854	1.726
Installation VAR	–	41 (Balat) 35 (Sfaga) 72 (Hurgda) 16 (Luxr) 79 (Mdecow) 59 (Tshka-1) 63 (Oyanat) 78 (Tshka-2)	SVC1, 89.4 (Balat) SVC2, 90.3 (Hurgda) SVC3, 86.7 (Tshka-1) SVC4, 89 (Tshka-2) TCSC1, 0.0069 (from Reva to Tama) TCSC2, 0.0165 (from Gerga to Nag-Ha) TCSC3, 0.0534 (from H-dam to Mdecow) TCSC4,0.1416 (from H-dam to Tshka-1)	CAP1, 80(Tama) CAP2, 73(Balat) CAP3, 75(Tshka-2) TCSC1, 0.0161(from Tama to Gerga) TCSC2, 0.0589(from H-dam to Mdecow) TCSC3, 0.1613(from H-dam to Tshka-1) SVC1, 96.2(Hurgda) SVC2, 99(Tshka1)
Min voltage	0.665 (Oyanat)	0.953 (Mdecow)	0.975 (Sfaga)	0.999 (Sfaga)

As shown from the results the use of any capacitor bank, FACTS or a hybrid assortment between them can compensate for the lack of reactive power in the system. When capacitors are only used to compensate for the lack of reactive power, this gives us more economical operation, but at the expense of increasing stability of the system. On the other hand, using FACTS gave us a more stable network, but of course, it is more costly than the previous option, whereas the use of a hybrid of capacitors and FACTS gave us the advantage of obtaining a network that greatly has good stability and at the same time a relatively reasonable cost.

7 Discussion

In view of the above results, it is clear that the use of any capacitor bank, FACTS, or a hybrid assortment between them fulfills the purpose required to compensate for the lack of reactive power in the system. It turns out that the use of the capacitor bank only is more appropriate from a purely economic point of view where it achieves the highest possible net save. But it is not a better option to improve voltage stability or TTC enhancement, while the use of FACTS devices is the best in terms of improving the stability and increasing the TTC of the system, but it is done at a very high cost. It also shows that the use of a hybrid assortment of capacitor banks and FACTS gives good results to improve network voltage stability and TTC with a fairly cheap cost. Given the advantage of relying on predefined locations to place new VAR sources or leaving this option as a control variable when solving the problem, it turns out that leaving this option as a control variable when solving the issue gives better results. Moreover, it is worth relying on the VSM as a voltage stability indicator in the objective function to improve voltage stability than using the L-index or other indices.

8 Conclusion

MOGA has been applied to solve the RPP problem with the objectives of minimizing the cost of losses and new VAR sources devices, improving system voltage stability, and increasing TTC. The proposed approach has been tested on the modified IEEE 30 bus test system and South Egypt transmission network. It is evident that the use of any capacitor banks, FACTS, or a hybrid assortment between them fulfills the purpose required to compensate for the lack of reactive power in the system. It turns out that the use of the capacitor banks only is more appropriate from a purely economic point of view where they achieve the highest possible net save. However, they are not the best options to improve voltage stability or TTC enhancement, while the use of FACTS devices is the best in terms of improving the voltage stability and increasing the TTC of the system but results in a very high cost. The results presented in this work have proved that the hybrid assortment of capacitor banks and FACTS gives good results to improve network voltage stability and TTC with a fairly cheap cost. They also clarified the importance of optimally allocating the VAR sources instead of locating them at the weakest buses or weakest lines. Moreover, it is worth relying on the VSM as a voltage stability indicator in the objective function to improve voltage stability than using the L-index or others indices. The comparison results of the proposed approach with those reported in the literature have shown the robustness of the proposed approach to solve the RPP problem.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Vorheriger Artikel Speed and current sensor fault-tolerant induction motor drive for electric vehicles based on virtual sensors

Nächster Artikel High efficiency implementation of constant voltage control of LC/S compensated wireless charging system for stationary electrical vehicles

Esmaili M, Shayanfar HA, Moslemi R (2014) Locating series FACTS devices for multi-objective congestion management improving voltage and transient stability. Eur J Oper Res 236(2):763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.01.017CrossRefMATH

Seifi H, Sepasian MS (2011) Electric power system planning: issues, algorithms and solutions. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

Reddy CM (2011) 54-Power system voltage stability analysis. Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad

Shaheen AM, Spea SR, Farrag SM, Abido MA (2018) A review of meta-heuristic algorithms for reactive power planning problem. Ain Shams Eng J 9(2):215–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.12.003CrossRef

Chansareewittaya S, Jirapong P (2015) Power transfer capability enhancement with multitype FACTS controllers using hybrid particle swarm optimization. Electr Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-014-0317-yCrossRef

Iba K, Suzuki H, Suzuki K, Suzuki K (1988) Practical reactive power allocation/operation planning using successive linear programming. IEEE Trans Power Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/59.192907CrossRef

Knittel M, Massmann J, Schmitt C, Kamenschikow D (2020) Dispatch of reactive power compensators in transmission grids. Electr Power Syst Res 180(19):106126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2019.106126CrossRef

Liu H, Jin L, McCalley J, Kumar R, Ajjarapu V, Elia N (2009) Planning reconfigurable reactive control for voltage stability limited power systems. 2009 IEEE Power Energy Soc Gen Meet PES ‘09 24(2):2005–2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2009.5275309CrossRef

Hsiao YT, Liu CC, Chiang HD, Chen YL (1993) A new approach for optimal VAR sources planning in large scale electric power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 8(3):988–996. https://doi.org/10.1109/59.260902CrossRef

10.

Devaraj D, Roselyn JP (2010) Genetic algorithm based reactive power dispatch for voltage stability improvement. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.06.014CrossRef

11.

Gopalakrishnan V, Thirunavukkarasu P, Prasanna R (2004) Reactive power planning using hybrid evolutionary programming method. In: 2004 IEEE PES power systems conference and exposition, vol 3. https://doi.org/10.1109/psce.2004.1397618

12.

Bhattacharyya B, Raj S (2016) PSO based bio inspired algorithms for reactive power planning. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 74:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.07.037CrossRef

13.

Zhang W, Liu Y (2008) Multi-objective reactive power and voltage control based on fuzzy optimization strategy and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 30(9):525–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2008.04.005CrossRef

14.

Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Farrag SM (2016) A novel adequate bi-level reactive power planning strategy. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 78:897–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.12.004CrossRef

15.

El Ela AAA, Abido MA, Spea SR (2011) Differential evolution algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch. Electr Power Syst Res 81(2):458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2010.10.005CrossRef

16.

Abou El-Ela AA, Kinawy AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Mouwafi MT (2011) Optimal reactive power dispatch using ant colony optimization algorithm. Electr Eng 93(2):103–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-011-0196-4CrossRef

17.

Shaw B, Mukherjee V, Ghoshal SP (2014) Solution of reactive power dispatch of power systems by an opposition-based gravitational search algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 55:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.08.010CrossRef

18.

Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Farrag SM (2019) A reactive power planning procedure considering iterative identification of VAR candidate buses. Neural Comput Appl 31(3):653–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3098-1CrossRef

19.

Gupta A, Gupta A, Kaushal A, Chaubey A, Sharma AK (2020) Reactive power planning using swarm evolutionary techniques. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2020 2nd international conference on advances in computing, communication control and networking, ICACCCN 2020, pp 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCCN51052.2020.9362841

20.

Karmakar N, Bhattacharyya B (2020) Optimal reactive power planning in power transmission network using sensitivity based bi-level strategy. Sustain Energy Grids Netw 23:100383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2020.100383CrossRef

21.

Padaiyatchi S, Daniel M (2013) OPF-based reactive power planning and voltage stability limit improvement under single line outage contingency condition through evolutionary algorithms. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 21(4):1092–1106. https://doi.org/10.3906/elk-1111-12CrossRef

22.

Vadivelu KR, Venkata Marutheeswar G (2015) Multi objective optimization based optimal reactive power planning using improved differential evolution incorporating FACTS. Int J Electr Eng Inform 7(4):630–643. https://doi.org/10.15676/ijeei.2015.7.4.7CrossRef

23.

Bhattacharyya B, Kumar S (2015) Reactive power planning with FACTS devices using gravitational search algorithm. Ain Shams Eng J 6(3):865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.02.002CrossRef

24.

Bhattacharyya B, Raj S (2016) Swarm intelligence based algorithms for reactive power planning with Flexible AC transmission system devices. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 78:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.086CrossRef

25.

Raj S, Bhattacharyya B (2018) Optimal placement of TCSC and SVC for reactive power planning using Whale optimization algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput 40:131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2017.12.008CrossRef

26.

Muhammad Y, Akhtar R, Khan R, Ullah F, Raja MAZ, Machado JAT (2021) Design of fractional evolutionary processing for reactive power planning with FACTS devices. Sci Rep 11(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79838-2CrossRef

27.

Raj S, Mahapatra S, Shiva CK, Bhattacharyya B (2021) Implementation and optimal sizing of TCSC for the solution of reactive power planning problem using quasi-oppositional salp swarm algorithm. Int J Energy Optim Eng 10(2):74–103. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijeoe.2021040104CrossRef

28.

Ramesh S, Kannan S, Baskar S (2012) Application of modified NSGA-II algorithm to multi-objective reactive power planning. Appl Soft Comput J 12(2):741–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.09.015CrossRef

29.

Preetha Roselyn J, Devaraj D, Dash SS (2014) Multi Objective Differential Evolution approach for voltage stability constrained reactive power planning problem. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 59:155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.02.013CrossRef

30.

Aljohani TM, Ebrahim AF, Mohammed O (2019) Single and multiobjective optimal reactive power dispatch based on hybrid artificial physics-particle swarm optimization. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122333CrossRef

31.

Elmitwally A, Eladl A (2016) Planning of multi-type FACTS devices in restructured power systems with wind generation. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 77:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.023CrossRef

32.

Dixon J, Morán L, Rodríguez J, Domke R (2005) Reactive power compensation technologies: state-of-the-art review. Proc IEEE 93(12):2144–2163. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2005.859937CrossRef

33.

Abdullah NRH, Musirin I, Othman MM (2010) Static VAR compensator for minimising transmission loss and installation cost calculation. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 4(4):646–657

34.

Mohanty AK , Barik AK. Power system stability improvement using FACTS devices, vol 1, no 2, pp 666–672

35.

Jumaat SA, Musirin I, Othman MM, Mokhlis H (2012) Particle swarm optimization techniques for optimal location and sizing of thyristor controlled series capacitor. In: ICIMTR 2012—2012 international conference on innovation, management and technology research, pp 640–645. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTR.2012.6236474

36.

Konak A, Coit DW, Smith AE (2006) Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: a tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(9):992–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.018CrossRef

37.

Zhou DQ, Annakkage UD, Rajapakse AD (2010) Online monitoring of voltage stability margin using an artificial neural network. IEEE Trans Power Syst 25(3):1566–1574. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2038059CrossRef

38.

Reis C, Maciel Barbosa FP (2006) A comparison of voltage stability indices. In: Proceedings of the mediterranean electrotechnical conference—MELECON, 2006, vol 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/melcon.2006.1653269

39.

Samuel IA, Katende J, Awosope COA, Awelewa AA (2017) Prediction of voltage collapse in electrical power system networks using a new voltage stability index. Int J Appl Eng Res 12(2):5245

40.

Kanimozhi R, Selvi K (2013) A novel line stability index for voltage stability analysis and contingency ranking in power system using fuzzy based load flow. J Electr Eng Technol. https://doi.org/10.5370/JEET.2013.8.4.694CrossRef

41.

Yang XS (2014) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms

42.

Alsac O, Stott B (1974) Optimal load flow with steady-state security. IEEE Trans Power Appar Syst PAS-93(3):745–751. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1974.293972CrossRef

43.

Saravanan M, Slochanal SMR, Venkatesh P, Abraham JPS (2007) Application of particle swarm optimization technique for optimal location of FACTS devices considering cost of installation and system loadability. Electr Power Syst Res 77(3–4):276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2006.03.006CrossRef

44.

Sultan HM, Kuznetsov ON, Diab AAZ (2018) Modelling and performance evaluation of the Egyptian national utility grid based on real data. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE conference of Russian young researchers in electrical and electronic engineering (ElConRus), vol 2018-Janua, pp 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1109/EIConRus.2018.8317213

Titel: Multi-objective-based reactive power planning and voltage stability enhancement using FACTS and capacitor banks
verfasst von: Abdelfattah A. Eladl
Mohamed I. Basha
Azza A. ElDesouky
Publikationsdatum: 30.03.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Electrical Engineering / Ausgabe 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0948-7921
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0487
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-022-01542-3

Neuer Inhalt

Bildnachweise

VDI-Icon, Profil Icon, inhalt2, Springer Professional Modul/© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Zukunftswerkstatt Sales Excellence_ieS/© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Search Icon, Banner Hanser, Bunte Männchen, die Kunden darstelle, werden von einem riesigen Magneten angezogen. /© Oleksiy Mark, Dr. Daniel Schneider/© Fraunhofer IESE, Interview Level Ten PPA Bild/© LevelTen, Zeitschrift Wissensmanagement Cover, PatentFit-Logo/© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Zukunftswerkstatt Sales Excellence 2024/© AndreyPopov / Getty Images / iStock, 2023_Antrieb/© supervisuell, ATZ-Webinar: Prototypenfreie Entwicklung durch Offline- und Driver-in-the-Loop-HiL-Tests /© (c) VI-grade

Springer Professional

Abstract

Publisher's Note

1 Introduction

2 Modeling of new VAR sources

2.1 Modeling of capacitor banks

2.2 Modeling of FACTS devises

2.2.1 Modeling of SVC

2.2.2 Modeling of TCSC

3 Problem formulation

3.1 Objective function

3.1.1 Active power losses cost

3.1.2 VAR cost

3.1.3 Enhancement of power system voltage stability

3.1.4 Enhancemessnt TTC using new VAR sources

3.2 Constraints

4 Multi-objective RPP solution

5 Proposed solution algorithm

6 Results and discussion

6.1 Modified IEEE 30-bus test system

6.1.1 Case 1: capacitor banks

6.1.2 Case 2: FACTS

6.1.3 Case 3: capacitor banks with FACTS

6.1.4 Using VAR sources to increase TTC

6.1.5 Comparison between fixed and optimal locations

6.1.6 A comparison between multi-voltage stability indices

6.1.7 Contingency analysis

6.1.8 Comparison of simulation results

6.2 South Egypt Electricity network

7 Discussion

8 Conclusion

Publisher's Note

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2022

Speed sensorless maximum power point tracking technique for SEIG-based wind energy conversion system feeding induction motor pump

Switched capacitors-based single-phase seven-level photovoltaic inverter with self-voltage balancing

Transformer model with hysteresis for electromagnetic transients computation in the frequency domain

Design of a novel distributed winding for improving performance of the induction motors

Multi-criterion fuzzy model for power transformer insulation monitoring

High-impedance fault detection in power distribution grid systems based on support vector machine approach

Neuer Inhalt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.