International Journal of Applied Power Engineering (IJAPE)

Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2024, pp. 920~927

ISSN: 2252-8792, DOI: 10.11591/ijape.v13.i4.pp920-927  920

Comparative analysis of two static var compensator models in

voltage control of transmission network

Abdulrasaq Jimoh1, Samson Oladayo Ayanlade2, Funso Kehinde Ariyo1, Moses Taiwo Adebayo1
1
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
2
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The static var compensator (SVC) is a member of the family of flexible
alternating current transmission systems controllers used in power system
Received Jan 1, 2024 engineering to manage specific transmission network characteristics to
Revised Aug 2, 2024 enhance the performance of the transmission networks and thus increase the
Accepted Aug 15, 2024 networks’ reliability. Power system engineers typically find it difficult to
choose which SVC model to implement for simulations. This research aims
to address this issue by conducting a comparative examination of two key
Keywords: SVC models on a transmission network. The two models of SVC variable
shunt susceptance and firing angle were mathematically modeled and
FACTS devices methodically included into the Newton-Raphson power flow algorithm for
Firing angle the network power flow solution. The IEEE 30-bus network was adopted as
Static var compensator the test case, and the method was implemented in the MATLAB/Simulink
Variable susceptance environment. The network performance metric utilized was the voltage
Voltage regulation profile of the network. The two SVC models were successful in enhancing
the network's performance; however, the variable shunt susceptance model
was computationally faster than the firing angle model, as revealed by the
simulation results. Therefore, among the two SVC models, the variable
shunt susceptance model may be taken into account for simulation to
enhance the performance of the transmission networks.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Samson Oladayo Ayanlade
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Lead City University
Toll Gate Area, Lagos/Ibadan Express Way, Ibadan, Nigeria
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Several difficulties confront transmission systems, jeopardizing their performance. Among these
difficulties are voltage magnitude fluctuations, power losses, and voltage regulation. Researchers from all
across the world have devised various solutions to some of these issues. Some of the solutions include shunt
capacitor placement [1]-[4], distribution generation incorporation [5]-[7], and the placement of flexible
alternating current transmission systems (FACTS) controllers [8]-[10], among others. FACTS
devices have found a wide range of applications in transmission systems for voltage control because of their
adaptability [11].
FACTS devices are electronic-based reactive compensators that are proficient at supplying or
consuming reactive power from networks based on the network requirements so that the performance of the
network may be improved [12]-[14]. FACTS devices come in various forms and their connections, as well as
their performances, differ from one another. The static var compensator (SVC), which comes in numerous
variants, is one of the several types of FACTS devices [15]-[17]. The two primary SVC models are the

Journal homepage: http://ijape.iaescore.com

Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  921

variable shunt susceptance model and the firing angle model. Both of these models are capable of boosting
transmission network performance due to their ability to control the bus voltage magnitudes of the
transmission networks [18].
A substantial amount of research has been undertaken to improve the performance of transmission
networks utilizing various types of FACTS devices. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) was utilized in [19]
to assign a static synchronous compensator (STATCOM) to improve the system voltage magnitudes and
decrease the active power loss. As a test case, the IEEE 14-bus network was employed. However, the study
focused only on one type of FACTS device and did not compare it with other devices, limiting the scope of
optimization techniques to STATCOM.
The application of the firefly algorithm (FA) to optimize SVC and STATCOM for voltage
magnitude enhancement and loss mitigation on the IEEE 14-bus network is documented in [20]. According
to the analysis, the installation of SVC and STATCOM devices enhanced the system voltage magnitudes
while simultaneously lowering active and reactive power losses. Nonetheless, the research did not explore the
performance of these devices under different network conditions, which could affect their applicability.
Metaheuristic algorithms were used in [21] to solve reactive power planning problems using FACTS
controllers. For the test scenarios, the IEEE 30- and IEEE 57-bus networks were utilized. The load flow
analysis technique was utilized to estimate the location of the thyristor-controlled series capacitor (TCSC),
and the voltage collapse proximity indication method was employed to obtain the SVC position. This study,
however, did not account for dynamic changes in the network load, which might influence the effectiveness
of the placement strategies.
Magadum et al. [22] solved voltage instability by employing fuzzy logic to optimize unified power
flow controller (UPFC) placement. The MiPower software package was used to run the simulation using the
IEEE 14 bus system. The UPFC location improved network voltage stability substantially. The limitation
here is the reliance on fuzzy logic, which may not capture all the nuances of the network dynamics and might
require extensive tuning of the fuzzy rules for different scenarios.
Subramani et al. [23] improved UPFC by utilizing PSO for optimal device position and parameter
tuning, which reduces active losses and enhances network voltage stability. To validate the proposed
approach, simulations were performed using the IEEE 14-bus system. However, the study did not compare
PSO with other optimization techniques, leaving open the question of whether PSO is the most effective
method for this purpose.
The multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) was used in [24] to analyze overall loss
minimization and line congestion enhancement by calculating the appropriate placements and compensation
rates of TCSC devices. To confirm the potency of the technique, it was evaluated on the IEEE 30-bus test
network. While effective, this approach did not consider the impact of other FACTS devices, such as SVC or
STATCOM, on the overall network performance.
Despite these advances, there remains a need for a focused comparison between different types of
SVCs in controlling bus voltage magnitudes to improve transmission network performance. This research
was conducted to compare the capabilities of two key types of SVCs in controlling the voltage magnitudes
at the buses where they are placed to boost the performance of the transmission network. The two basic
types of SVCs were modeled mathematically and added to the Newton-Raphson load flow algorithm.
MATLAB codes were developed to implement the technique and were executed on the IEEE 30-bus
transmission system.
The primary contribution of this paper extends to offering comprehensive insights into the
performance variations among static var compensator models, facilitating a nuanced understanding of their
effectiveness under diverse transmission network conditions. This analysis aids in not only identifying
optimal models for precise voltage control but also lays the groundwork for refining voltage control
strategies, thus bolstering the stability and efficiency of transmission networks. This study's novelty rests in a
focused comparison between two SVC models, emphasizing their computational speed and effectiveness in
regulating bus voltage magnitude within transmission networks.

2. METHOD
In its simplest form, the static var compensator (SVC) consists of a parallel connection between a
bank of capacitors and a thyristor-controlled reactor (TCR). This configuration operates similarly to a
parallel-connected variable susceptance, where the SVC regulates the voltage magnitude at the connection
point to the system by either generating or absorbing reactive power. This capability allows the SVC to
provide rapid adjustments to reactive power and voltage levels as needed [25]. The thyristor’s firing angle
control mechanism enables the SVC to react almost instantaneously to changes in system conditions.
Figure 1 illustrates the schematic representation of the SVC. The SVC is connected to the
transmission network through a three-phase, three-winding transformer. This transformer features two
Comparative analysis of two static var compensator models in voltage control … (Abdulrasaq Jimoh)
922  ISSN: 2252-8792

secondary windings: one configured as a delta connection for the six-pulse TCR, and the other configured as
a star connection for the three-phase capacitor bank, with a floating star point [18]. It is also assumed that all
three windings of the transformer are star-connected, with the star points floating to allow for effective
reactive power compensation and voltage regulation. Since transmission network lines are transposed at
regular intervals, which results in the assumption that these networks operate as balanced systems, the
following sub-sections describe the two single-phase models of SVC.

Ia Va

Ib Vb

Ic Vc

ITC Ra
ITC Rc ITC Rb

ICc ICb ICa ITC R1 ITC R2 ITC R3

C3 C3
C2

n
Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3

Figure 1. Three-phase SVC representation consisting of thyristor-controlled reactors and

fixed capacitors [18]

2.1. Shunt variable susceptance mode

The SVC may really be thought of as a controllable reactance with either reactance limitations or
firing angle constraints [26]. The analogous circuit seen in Figure 2 is used to develop both the linearized
equations needed by Newton's approach and the SVC nonlinear power equations. Referring to Figure 2, the
SVC's current draw is:

𝐼SVC = 𝑗𝐵SVC 𝑉𝑘 (1)

and the reactive power injected at bus k, as well as the reactive power extracted by the SVC, is given as (2).

𝑄𝑆𝑉𝐶 = 𝑄𝑘 = −𝑉𝑘2 𝐵SVC (2)

The equivalent susceptance 𝐵SVC is assumed to represent the state variable and the linearized equation is
given as (3).
(𝑖)
𝛥𝑃 (𝑖) 0 0 (𝑖) 𝛥𝑄𝑘
[ 𝑘] = [ ] [𝛥𝐵SVC ] (3)
𝛥𝑄𝑘 0 𝑄𝑘 𝐵 SVC

The variable shunt susceptance BSVC is revised after each repetition in accordance with (4).

(𝑖) (𝑖−1) 𝛥𝐵SVC (𝑖) (𝑖−1)

𝐵SVC = 𝐵SVC + ( ) 𝐵SVC (4)
𝐵SVC

The total SVC susceptance required to keep the bus voltage magnitude at the desired level is represented by
the changing susceptance [27]. The thyristor firing angle is determined once the level of correction has been
established. However, due to the nonlinear relationship between the SVC susceptance and the thyristor firing
angle, this computation requires an iterative solution [28].

2.2. Firing-angle model

By addressing the thyristor-controlled reactor (TCR) firing angle α as a state variable in the power
flow derivation, an alternative 𝛼SVC model may be used to avoid the extra iterative procedure [29]. Here,
"SVC" is used to refer to the variable. The SVC's positive sequence susceptance is provided as in (5).

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2024: 920-927
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  923

−𝑉𝑘2 𝑋𝐶
𝑄𝑘 = {𝑋𝐿 − [2(𝜋 − 𝛼SVC ) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝛼SVC )]} (5)
𝑋𝐶 𝑋𝐿 𝜋

The linearized SVC equation is provided from (5) as (6).

(𝑖)
𝛥𝑃 (𝑖) 0 0 𝛥𝑄𝑘 (𝑖)
[ 𝑘] = [ 2𝑉𝑘2
[𝑐𝑜𝑠(2𝛼SVC ) − 1]] [ ] (6)
𝛥𝑄𝑘 0 𝛥𝛼SVC
𝜋𝑋𝐿

The variable firing angle 𝛼𝑆𝑉𝐶 is revised after each iteration in accordance with (7).

(𝑖) (𝑖−1) (𝑖)

𝛼𝑆𝑉𝐶 = 𝛼𝑆𝑉𝐶 + 𝛥𝛼𝑆𝑉𝐶 (7)

The Newton-Raphson power flow technique was implemented for both SVC models based on their
mathematical formulations, and MATLAB scripts and functions were developed to perform the simulations.
The data required for the simulations were obtained from [30].

ISVC

BSVC

Figure 2. Variable shunt susceptance [18], [26]

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The investigation results of the two SVC models are presented. The simulations used a precision
level of 1e-10 and were performed over 20 iterations. Figure 3 shows the IEEE 30-bus power flow solution.
It was discovered that some buses had voltage magnitudes less than 1.0 p.u. Therefore, SVCs were installed
on these buses to explore the capabilities of the two types of SVC models in regulating the voltage to the
desired level. In the network under investigation, simulations were conducted by sequentially adding SVCs.
Initially, one SVC was installed at the first selected bus, followed by two SVCs at the first two selected
buses, three SVCs at the first three selected buses, and finally four SVCs at the first four selected buses.
Buses numbered 18, 20, 24, and 25 were chosen because their voltage magnitudes were less than 1.0 p.u., as
depicted in Figure 3. The voltage magnitudes at these buses were initially adjusted to 1.0 p.u. and
subsequently to 1.05 p.u. to assess the performance of the SVCs in regulating the voltage levels.
The simulation results for the two different SVC models are shown in Table 1, with the SVC voltage
magnitudes regulated to 1.0 p.u. The susceptance values for both models, as presented in Table 1, were found
to be identical, indicating consistent reactive power compensation capabilities. Figure 4 further elucidates the
comparison of voltage profiles between the base case and the scenarios where the two different SVC models
were deployed on the selected buses. This comparison demonstrates how both models effectively enhanced
the network's voltage stability by maintaining the bus voltage magnitudes within the desired range. The
identical susceptance values suggest that both models provide comparable reactive power support under
steady-state conditions.
However, as shown in Table 1, the variable shunt susceptance model exhibited superior
performance over the firing angle model in terms of computational efficiency. Specifically, the variable shunt
susceptance model required fewer iterations to converge and achieved shorter simulation times, highlighting
its efficiency in reaching a steady-state solution. This indicates that the variable shunt susceptance model is
more computationally efficient, which can be particularly advantageous in real-time applications where quick
response times are critical.
Additionally, Table 1 documents the firing angles for each simulation corresponding to the firing
angle model. This data provides further insight into the operational characteristics of the firing angle model,
showing the adjustments needed to achieve the desired voltage regulation. The detailed recording of firing
angles aids in understanding the control mechanism and the extent of modulation required for effective
voltage control. In summary, while both SVC models enhance the voltage profile and provide effective
Comparative analysis of two static var compensator models in voltage control … (Abdulrasaq Jimoh)
924  ISSN: 2252-8792

voltage regulation, the variable shunt susceptance model offers significant advantages in terms of
computational speed and efficiency. These findings underscore the importance of selecting the appropriate
SVC model based on the specific requirements of the transmission network and the operational constraints.

Figure 3. Voltage profile in the IEEE 30-bus network's base scenario

Table 1. Simulation results when the SVC voltage was adjusted to 1.0 p.u.
SVC model 1 SVC 2 SVCs 3 SVCs 4 SVCs
Variable susceptance model Susceptance (p.u.) 0.0441 0.0182 0.0119 0.0095
0.0391 0.0305 0.0273
0.0558 0.0388
0.0531
Simulation time (s)/iteration 0.004124/5 0.004195/5 0.004233/5 0.022763/5
Firing angle model Susceptance (p.u.) 0.0441 0.0182 0.0119 0.0095
0.0391 0.0305 0.0273
0.0558 0.0388
0.0531
Firing angle (degree) 186.3 154.8 147.2 144.3
180.2 169.6 165.7
200.7 179.8
197.4
Simulation time (s)/iteration 0.006313/7 0.006578/7 0.012756/7 0.024010/7

Figure 4. Voltage profile comparison when the two SVC models voltage was adjusted to 1.0 p.u.

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2024: 920-927
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  925

Similarly, additional simulations were performed with the SVC voltage magnitudes adjusted to 1.05
p.u. to evaluate the impact of this voltage setting on network performance. The outcomes of these simulations
are summarized in Table 2, which presents a detailed comparison of the performance metrics for both the
variable shunt susceptance and firing-angle SVC models. Figure 5 illustrates the resulting voltage profiles
from these simulations, providing a clear visual representation of how the adjusted SVC voltages influenced
the voltage regulation across the network.
The results depicted in Figure 5 reveal a marked improvement in the voltage profile when the SVC
voltage magnitudes were set to 1.05 p.u. Both SVC models effectively enhanced the voltage stability at the
specified buses, as evidenced by the improved voltage profiles. However, a closer comparison of the two
models shows that, while both achieved similar outcomes in terms of voltage regulation, the variable shunt
susceptance model demonstrated superior computational efficiency compared to the firing-angle model. This
superiority was evident through fewer iterations and faster convergence in the power flow calculations,
consistent with observations made when the SVC voltages were controlled to 1.05 p.u. These findings
underscore the variable shunt susceptance model’s advantage in both practical applications and simulation
scenarios for effective voltage control in transmission networks.

Table 2. Simulation results when the SVC voltage was adjusted to 1.05 p.u.
SVC model 1 SVC 2 SVCs 3 SVCs 4 SVCs
Variable susceptance model BSVC (p.u.) 0.2427 0.1301 0.1184 0.1177
0.1697 0.1537 0.1527
0.1034 0.0981
0.0170
Simulation time (s)/iteration 0.004963/6 0.013045/6 0.014362/6 0.022763/6
Firing angle model BSVC (p.u.) (p.u.) 0.2427 0.1301 0.1184 0.1141
0.1697 0.1537 0.1479
0.1034 0.0723
0.0962
Firing angle (degree) 86.7 294.6 279.6 274
346.7 325.5 317.9
260.3 221.2
251.3
Simulation time (s)/iteration 0.015616/7 0.016468/7 0.028005/7 0.024010/7

Figure 5. Voltage profile comparison when the two SVC models voltage was adjusted to 1.05 p.u.

4. CONCLUSION
This study explored the effectiveness of two different types of SVC models variable shunt
susceptance and firing-angle models in regulating voltage magnitudes in transmission networks. Both models
were systematically developed and integrated into the Newton-Raphson power flow algorithm, demonstrating
their capability to stabilize voltage levels across the network. The simulations revealed that while both
models were effective in improving voltage stability, the variable shunt susceptance model exhibited superior
performance compared to the firing-angle model. Specifically, the variable shunt susceptance model achieved
faster computational times and required fewer iterations to reach convergence, highlighting its efficiency for
voltage control applications.

Comparative analysis of two static var compensator models in voltage control … (Abdulrasaq Jimoh)
926  ISSN: 2252-8792

The results suggest that the variable shunt susceptance model is a more advantageous tool for power
system engineers seeking to enhance voltage regulation in transmission networks. Its superior computational
performance and effectiveness make it a preferred choice for simulation and practical implementation.
Future research could extend these findings by investigating the model’s performance under dynamic
conditions and exploring its integration with advanced optimization techniques to further improve
transmission network management.

REFERENCES
[1] B. Saleh, L. J. Yin, and R. Verayiah, “Voltage regulation and power loss reduction by integration of SVC in distribution networks
via PSSE,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1579-1587, Sep. 2020,
doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v11.i3.pp1579-1587.
[2] E. I. Ogunwole, S. O. Ayanlade, D. E. Owolabi, A. Jimoh, A. B. Jimoh, and F. M. Aremu, “Performance comparative evaluation
of metaheuristic optimization algorithms for optimal placement of flexible alternating current transmission system device,” in
2022 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET), Jul. 2022, pp. 1–8, doi:
10.1109/ICECET55527.2022.9872866.
[3] A. A. Augusto, J. C. S. de Souza, M. B. D. C. Filho, H. R. de O. Rocha, and J. E. V. Tafur, “Optimized capacitor placement
considering load and network variability,” Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical Systems, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1489–1498,
Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40313-020-00639-z.
[4] G. G. Soma, “Optimal sizing and placement of capacitor banks in distribution networks using a genetic algorithm,” Electricity,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 187–204, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/electricity2020012.
[5] A. Jimoh, S. O. Ayanlade, E. I. Ogunwole, D. E. Owolabi, A. B. Jimoh, and F. M. Aremu, “Metaheuristic optimization algorithm
performance comparison for optimal allocation of static synchronous compensator,” Advances in Science, Technology and
Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 116–124, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.25046/aj080114.
[6] W. Haider, S. J. U. Hassan, A. Mehdi, A. Hussain, G. O. M. Adjayeng, and C.-H. Kim, “Voltage profile enhancement and loss
minimization using optimal placement and sizing of distributed generation in reconfigured network,” Machines, vol. 9, no. 1, p.
20, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/machines9010020.
[7] S. Mahajan and Y. P. Verma, “Techno-economic analysis of increasing PV-wind based DG penetration in sub-transmission
system,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1033, no. 1, p. 012004, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-
899X/1033/1/012004.
[8] S. O. Ayanlade, E. I. Ogunwole, A. Jimoh, S. O. Ezekiel, D. E. Owolabi, and A. B. Jimoh, “STATCOM allocation using firefly
algorithm for loss minimization and voltage profile enhancement,” in 2022 International Conference on Electrical, Computer,
Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), Nov. 2022, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ICECCME55909.2022.9988475.
[9] R. Verma and A. Rathore, “Optimal placement of facts device considering voltage stability and losses using teaching learning
based optimization,” Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 771–776, Aug. 2021, doi:
10.1007/s40031-021-00582-w.
[10] J. Mahadevan, R. Rengaraj, and A. Bhuvanesh, “Application of multi-objective hybrid artificial bee colony with differential
evolution algorithm for optimal placement of microprocessor based FACTS controllers,” Microprocess Microsystems, p. 104239,
Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.micpro.2021.104239.
[11] S. S. Biswal, D. R. Swain, and P. K. Rout, “Inter-area and intra-area oscillation damping for UPFC in a multi-machine power
system based on tuned fractional PI controllers,” International Journal of Dynamics and Control, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1594–1612,
Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40435-021-00891-4.
[12] Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M. A. Z. Raja, F. Ullah, N. I. Chaudhary, and Y. He, “Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch with
FACTS devices: A survey,” Energy Reports, vol. 6, pp. 2211–2229, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.030.
[13] A. Al Ahmad and R. Sirjani, “Optimal placement and sizing of multi-type FACTS devices in power systems using metaheuristic
optimisation techniques: An updated review,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 611–628, Sep. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.asej.2019.10.013.
[14] F. Relić, P. Marić, H. Glavaš, and I. Petrović, “Influence of FACTS device implementation on performance of distribution
network with integrated renewable energy sources,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 5516, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13205516.
[15] P. Gupta and A. S. Siddiqui, “A comprehensive review on various FACTS devices and application of different ai techniques in
their operations for progressive electric power system operations,” International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems, vol.
12, no. 1, pp. 767–780, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.12785/ijcds/120163.
[16] V. Yarlagadda, A. K. Garikapati, L. Gadupudi, R. Kapoor, and K. Veeresham, “Comparative analysis of STATCOM and SVC on
power system dynamic response and stability margins with time and frequency responses using Modelling,” in 2022 International
Conference on Smart Technologies and Systems for Next Generation Computing (ICSTSN), Mar. 2022, pp. 1–8. doi:
10.1109/ICSTSN53084.2022.9761306.
[17] S. Choudhury and T. Dash, “Modified brain storming optimization technique for transient stability improvement of SVC
controller for a two machine system,” World Journal of Engineering, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 841–850, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1108/WJE-
09-2020-0409.
[18] E. Acha, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, H. Ambriz-Pérez, and C. Angeles-Camacho, FACTS: Modelling and Simulation in Power
Networks. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2004.
[19] M. O. Okelola, S. O. Ayanlade, and E. I. Ogunwole, “Particle swarm optimization for optimal allocation of STATCOM on
transmission network,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1880, no. 1, p. 012035, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1880/1/012035.
[20] S. O. Ayanlade, E. I. Ogunwole, S. A. Salimon, and S. O. Ezekiel, “Effect of optimal placement of shunt facts devices on
transmission network using firefly algorithm for voltage profile improvement and loss minimization,” in International Conference
of Reliable Information and Communication Technology, 2022, pp. 385–396, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-98741-1_32.
[21] S. Raj and B. Bhattacharyya, “Optimal placement of TCSC and SVC for reactive power planning using Whale optimization
algorithm,” Swarm Evolutionary Computation, vol. 40, pp. 131–143, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.swevo.2017.12.008.
[22] R. B. Magadum, S. N. Dodamani, and D. B. Kulkarni, “Optimal placement of unified power flow controller (UPFC) using fuzzy
logic,” in 2019 Fifth International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), Feb. 2019, pp. 1–4, doi:
10.1109/ICEES.2019.8719304.

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2024: 920-927
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  927

[23] C. Subramani, A. A. Jimoh, S. S. Dash, and S. Harishkiran, “PSO application to optimal placement of UPFC for loss
minimization in power system,” in Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Applications:
ICICA 2015, 2017, pp. 223–230, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-1645-5_19.
[24] T. T. Nguyen and F. Mohammadi, “Optimal placement of TCSC for congestion management and power loss reduction using
multi-objective genetic algorithm,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 2813, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12072813.
[25] M. Mahdavian and F. H. Fesharak, “The effect of shunt FACTS devices on voltage regulation in transmission lines,” Signal
Processing and Renewable Energy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 85–94, 2022.
[26] H. Ambriz-Perez, E. Acha, and C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel, “Advanced SVC models for Newton-Raphson load flow and Newton
optimal power flow studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 129–136, 2000, doi: 10.1109/59.852111.
[27] M. K. M. Zamani, I. Musirin, S. I. Suliman, and M. M. Othman, “Chaotic immune symbiotic organisms search for SVC
installation in voltage security control,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.
623–630, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v16.i2.pp623-630.
[28] R. A. H. Abadi and A. Nekoubin, “Improving transient stability in power systems by using fuzzy logic controlled SVC,” IAES
International Journal of Robotics and Automation (IJRA), vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 227–233, 2017, doi: 10.11591/ijra.v6i4.pp227-233.
[29] N. Cherkaoui, A. Belfqih, F. El Mariami, J. Boukherouaa, and A. Berdai, “Optimal location and reactive power injection of wind
farms and SVC’s units using voltage indices and PSO,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE),
vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3407–3414, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i5.pp3407-3414.
[30] M. Shahidehpour and Y. Wang, Communication and Control in Electric Power Systems: applications of parallel and distributed
processing. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Abdulrasaq Jimoh received the engineering degree in electrical engineering from

the University of Ilorin in 2002, the M.Sc. degree in electrical power system engineering from
the University of Lagos in 2010, and the M.Phil. in electronic and electrical engineering from
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. He is a registered engineer with the Council for
Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria, a fellow of the Nigerian Society of Engineers, and a
fellow of the Nigerian Institution of Power Engineers. He was the technical engineer of the
Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company (IBEDC), Ibadan, Nigeria. Currently, he is the regional
head with IBEDC and is also pursuing a Ph.D. degree at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Osun State, Nigeria. His research interests include distribution system voltage control and
improvement, as well as the economic operation of distribution systems. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Samson Oladayo Ayanlade graduated with a bachelor of technology (B.Tech.)

degree in Electronic and Electrical Engineering from Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria in 2012 and an M.Sc. in power system engineering
from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria in 2019. He barged his Ph.D. at
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State in 2024. His research interests are primarily in
the areas of power system optimization, and power system stability. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected] or [email protected].

Funso Kehinde Ariyo received bachelor of science (B.Sc.) in electronic and

electrical engineering from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria in 2004,
master of science in power system engineering from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Osun State, Nigeria and Ph.D. in power system, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun
State, Nigeria. Currently, he is a senior lecturer at Department of Electronic and Electrical
Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. His research interests
are power system power quality, power system analysis, and power system modeling. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Moses Taiwo Adebayo received the engineering degree in electrical engineering

from the University of Ilorin in 2002, the M.Tech. degree in electrical electronic engineering
power option from Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State in 2014. Currently, he
is the power control and automation specialist with Cadbury Nigeria Limited, Agidingbi, Lagos,
and is also pursuing a Ph.D. degree at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State,
Nigeria. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Comparative analysis of two static var compensator models in voltage control … (Abdulrasaq Jimoh)