Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system using the optimal values of FACTS devices

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2021, pp. 984~992
ISSN: 2088-8708, DOI: 10.11591/ijece.v11i2.pp984-992  984
Journal homepage: http://ijece.iaescore.com
Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system
using the optimal values of FACTS devices
Ghassan Abdullah Salman, Hatim G. Abood, Mayyadah Sahib Ibrahim
Department of Electrical Power and Machines Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Diyala, Iraq
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Feb 24, 2020
Revised Aug 28, 2020
Accepted Sep 11, 2020
The detection of potential voltage collapse in power systems is essential to
maintain the voltage stability in heavy load demand. This paper proposes a
method to detect weak buses in power systems using two stability indices:
the voltage stability margin factor (dS/dY) and the voltage collapse
prediction index (VCPI). Hence, the paper aims to improve the voltage
stability of Iraqi transmission grid by allocating FACTS devices in the
optimal locations and optimal sizes. Two types of FACTS are used in this
paper which are Thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC) and static
var compensator (SVC). The objective function of the problem is fitted using
particle swarm optimization (PSO). The proposed method is verified using
simulation test on Diyala-132 kV network which is a part of the Iraqi power
system. The results observed that improvement the voltage stability margin,
the voltage profile of Diyala-132 kV is increased and the power losses is
decreased.
Keywords:
PSO
SVC
TCSC
Voltage stability indices
Weak bus detection
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Ghassan Abdullah Salman
Department of Electrical Power and Machins Engineering
Collage of Engineering, University of Diyala
Baqubah, Diyala, Iraq
Email: ghassanpowerz@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Maintaining voltage stability of the power system is one of the major problems due to the frequent
voltage collapse that is related to disturbances, over loaded systems and changing operating conditions.
Therefore, the voltage point is known as a heavy loaded point [1-3]. The shortage in the capability of the
system to meet the demand of the reactive power is the main reason of voltage profile deterioration. The
system is considered unstable when the voltage magnitude of any bus decreases and the reactive power
increases for the same bus of the system [4-7]. Therefore, the challenge is to identify weakest bus prone to
voltage collapse and hence, initiates that the problem of voltage instability. The existing method of detecting
the weak buses are almost based on voltage stability indices. However, the main way to avoid the voltage
failure is to decrease the reactive power load or increase the systems’ reactive power [8-11].
The flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS) devices can achieve a safe and cost-
effective solution if they are appropriately installed in the power system. Among the entire FACTS devices,
the Thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC) and static var compensator (SVC) are selected to be
applied in the proposed method due to their highly leading flexibility [12-18]. TCSC as an efficient series
compensation controller can be utilized in transmission line, for control the power flow in power system,
while SVC as an efficient shunt compensation controller can be injected reactive power at buses, for adjusted
the voltages of power system [19-21]. Allocating these FACTS devices results in significant improvement in
characteristic of voltage stability margin of the large-scale power systems [22-26]. In the existing literature,

Int J Elec & Comp Eng ISSN: 2088-8708 
Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system using ... (Ghassan Abdullah Salman)
985
the optimal deployment of the FACTS devices is achieved using several optimization techniques such as the
genetic algorithm (GA), evolutionary programming (EP) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) [27-32].
In this paper, a PSO-based methodology is proposing for finding the optimal sizes and selecting the
optimal locations of the FACTS devices. However, this paper focuses on the setting and placement of TCSC
and SVC controller, for improvement the voltage stability margin of Diyala 132 kV power system. The
proposed method aims to improve the voltage stability of the Iraqi power grid by installing the proposer
FACTS devices in the weakest bus according to its voltage stability indices. Multi- objective functions are
used in this paper relevant to the active power losses, voltage stability margin, and the voltage stability
deviation are employed for optimizing the optimal locations and sizes of FACTS devices. Both TCSC and
SVC be able of improving the voltage stability margin and therefore, enhancing the overall system
performance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the mathematical formulation of the voltage stability
problem, the indices of voltage stability, and the modeling of the FACTS devices are given in section 2, the
proposed method, formulation of the objective functions with the PSO algorithm is presented in section 3,
simulation tests and discussion are provided in section 4 followed by the conclusions in section 5.
2. FORMULATION OF VOLTAGE STABILITY AND FACTS DEVICES
This section provides the formulas of modeling the two indices of voltage stability margin with the
detection techniques of the weakest bus and the modeling of the two types of FACTS devices. In this paper,
the overall performance of power system is enhancement by using series and shunt FACTS devices which are
the TCSC and SVC.
2.1. Voltage stability margin factor (dS/dY)
The (dS/dY) index describes the voltage stability margin based on Thevenin theorem ranges from 0
(no-load) to 1 (voltage-collapse point). Based on this index, the voltage collapse point is reached when the
(dS/dY) factor is close to zero. Hence, the weakest bus in system is the closest one to zero. However, the
model is represented by the following equations [8, 9]:
𝑉 =
𝐸𝑇ℎ𝑍𝐿
√𝑍𝑇ℎ
2 +𝑍𝐿
2+2𝑍𝑇ℎ𝑍𝐿 cos(𝜃−𝜑)
(1)
The load is supplied by the apparent power,
𝑆 = 𝑉2
𝑌 where 𝑌 =
1
𝑍𝐿
𝑆 =
𝐸𝑇ℎ
2
𝑍𝐿
𝑍𝑇ℎ
2 +𝑍𝐿
2+2𝑍𝑇ℎ𝑍𝐿 cos(𝜃−𝜑)
(2)
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
=
𝐸𝑇ℎ
2
(1−𝑍𝑇ℎ
2
𝑌2)
(1+𝑍𝑇ℎ
2 𝑌2+2𝑍𝑇ℎ𝑌 cos(𝜃−𝜑))
2 (3)
where, 𝜃 is the phase angle of impedance 𝑍𝑇ℎ and 𝜑 is the phase angle of impedance 𝑍𝐿.
2.2. Voltage collapse prediction index (VCPI)
The VCPI index is derived from the basic power flow equation to determine the voltage stability
margin. The voltage collapse point is met when VCPI factor is close to one, and the weakest bus in system is
that closest to one. However, the model can be represented as follows [10, 11]:
𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑘 = 1 −
∑ 𝑉𝑚
′
𝑁
𝑚=1
𝑚≠𝑘
𝑉𝑘
(4)
In (4) 𝑉
𝑚
′
is represented by,
𝑉
𝑚
′
=
𝑌𝑘𝑚
∑ 𝑌𝑘𝑗
𝑁
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑘
𝑉
𝑚 (5)

 ISSN: 2088-8708
Int J Elec & Comp Eng, Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2021 : 984 - 992
986
In this part, the load is increased regarding as loading factor (𝜆) which leads to voltage collapse
point of power systems.
𝑃𝐿 = 𝜆𝑃𝐿𝑜 , 𝑄𝐿 = 𝜆𝑄𝐿𝑜 (6)
where, 𝑉𝑘 is the voltage phasor at bus k, 𝑉
𝑚 is the voltage phasor at bus m, 𝑌𝑘𝑚 is the admittance between bus
k and m, 𝑌𝑘𝑗 is the admittance between bus k and j, k is the monitoring bus, m is the other bus connected to
bus k and 𝜆 is the loading factor.
2.3. Modelling of TCSC
The TCSC is the series types of FACTS device and connected between two buses shown in
Figure 1. The TCSC operates either inductive or capacitive by modification the reactance of transmission
line, and the model can be represented by the following equations [23, 28]:
𝑋𝑖𝑗 = 𝑋𝐿 + 𝑋𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 (7)
𝑋𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 = 𝑟𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 ∗ 𝑋𝐿 (8)
−0.8𝑋𝐿 ≤ 𝑋𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 ≤ 0.2𝑋𝐿 (9)
where, 𝑋𝐿 is the reactance of the transmission line, 𝑋𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 is the TCSC reactance and 𝑟𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶 is the coefficient
depending on reactance of the transmission line location.
Figure 1. TCSC structure model
2.4. Modelling of SVC
The most popular configuration of shunt type connected FACTS device is the SVC that is shown in
Figure 2. The SVC operates either capacitive or inductive by injection or absorbing reactive power to the bus,
and the model can be represented as follows [23, 28]:
𝐼𝑆𝑉𝐶 = 𝑗𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶𝑉𝑘 (10)
𝑄𝑆𝑉𝐶 = −𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶𝑉𝑘
2
(11)
−100 ≤ 𝑄𝑆𝑉𝐶 ≤ 100 (12)
where, 𝐼𝑆𝑉𝐶 is the current drawn by SVC, 𝑉𝑘 is the voltage at kith bus, 𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 is the susceptance of SVC and
𝑄𝑆𝑉𝐶 is the reactive power injected into the bus (inductive or capacitive).
Figure 2. SVC structure model

987
3. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
In the proposed method, the optimal location and value of TCSC and SVC controller is determined
by using PSO algorithm based on multi-objective functions.
3.1. Formulation of multi-objective functions
The optimal sizing and location of TCSC and SVC devices are found based on four objective
functions. This paper proposes improved formulations to that described in [8-11, 24, 25]. The modifications
implemented on the traditional indices is proposed in such a way that normalize the target of the objective
functions and facilitate convergence of the problem. Two of the objective functions are minimized and two
functions are maximized. The objective functions are summarized below:
3.1.1. Power losses index (PLI)
Based on this objective function, the active power losses are computed with and without FACTS
controller. The PLI is minimized and can be formulated as [24, 25]:
𝑃𝐿 = ∑ 𝐺𝑘[𝑉𝑖
2
+ 𝑉
𝑗
2
− 2𝑉𝑖𝑉
𝑗 cos 𝛿𝑖𝑗]
𝑁
𝑘=1 (13)
𝑃𝐿𝐼 = 𝑃𝐿
𝑊
− 𝑃𝐿
𝑊𝑂
(14)
where 𝑃𝐿
𝑊
− 𝑃𝐿
𝑊𝑂
≤ 0. Where, 𝑁 is the number of transmission lines, 𝐺𝑘 is the conductance of branch
between bus i and bus j, 𝑉𝑖 is the voltage magnitude at bus i, 𝑉
𝑗 is the voltage magnitude at bus j, 𝛿𝑖𝑗 is the
phase angle difference, 𝑃𝐿
𝑊
is the total power losses with TCSC & SVC and 𝑃𝐿
𝑊𝑂
is the total power losses
without TCSC & SVC.
3.1.2. Voltage margin index (VMI)
Based on this objective function, the voltage profile of load buses is computed, with and without
FACTS controller. The acceptable values of bus voltage are (1±0.5). The VMI is maximized and can be
formulated as [24, 25]:
𝑉𝑀𝐼 = ∑ (𝑉𝑖
𝑊
− 𝑉𝑖
𝑊𝑂
)
𝑃𝑄 𝑏𝑢𝑠
𝑖≠1 (15)
where 𝑉𝑖
𝑊
− 𝑉𝑖
𝑊𝑂
≥ 0. Where, 𝑉𝑖
𝑊
is the voltage magnitude with TCSC & SVC and 𝑉𝑖
𝑊𝑂
is the voltage
magnitude without TCSC & SVC.
3.1.3. dS/dY deviation (∆dS/dY)
This objective function computes the deviation of dS/dY for load buses with and without FACTS
controller. The ∆dS/dY is maximized and can be formulated as [8, 9]:
∆
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
= ∑ [(
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊
− (
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊𝑂
]
𝑖≠1 (16)
where (
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊
− (
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊𝑂
≥ 0. Where, (
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊
is the Voltage Stability Margin Factor with TCSC & SVC and
(
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
)
𝑖
𝑊𝑂
is the voltage stability margin factor without TCSC & SVC.
3.1.4. VCPI deviation (∆VCPI)
This objective function computes the deviation of VCPI for load buses with and without FACTS
controller. The ∆VCPI is minimized and can be formulated as [10, 11]:
∆𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼 = ∑ (𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑖
𝑊
− 𝑉𝐶𝑃𝑖
𝑊𝑂
)
𝑖≠1 (17)
where 𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑖
𝑊
− 𝑉𝐶𝑃𝑖
𝑊𝑂
≤ 0. Where, 𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑖
𝑊
is the voltage collapse prediction index with TCSC & SVC and
𝑉𝐶𝑃𝑖
𝑊𝑂
is the voltage collapse prediction index without TCSC & SVC. Therefore, the objective function (J)
is given by:
𝐽 = 0.25 ∗ (𝑃𝐿𝐼 − 𝑉𝑀𝐼 − ∆
𝑑𝑆
𝑑𝑌
+ ∆𝑉𝐶𝑃𝐼) (18)

 ISSN: 2088-8708
988
3.2. Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
Based on the PSO algorithm, the parameters of each particle are updated in each iteration according
to the following formulas that are simulating the position and velocity of each bird in birds’ swarms [33-35].
𝑉𝑖
𝐾+1
= 𝑊[𝑉𝑖
𝐾
+ ∅1𝑟1(𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡,𝑖
𝐾
− 𝑋𝑖
𝐾
) + ∅2𝑟2(𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡,𝑖
𝐾
− 𝑋𝑖
𝐾
)] (19)
𝑋𝑖
𝐾+1
= 𝑋𝑖
𝐾
+ 𝑉𝑖
𝐾+1
(20)
𝑊 =
2
2−∅−√∅2−4∅
, ∅1 + ∅2 = ∅ > 4 (21)
where, 𝑋𝑖
𝐾+1
is the position of particle at k+1, 𝑋𝑖
𝐾
is the position of particle at k, 𝑉𝑖
𝐾+1
represent the velocity
of the particle at k+1, 𝑉𝑖
𝐾
represent the velocity of the particle at k, 𝑊 represent inertia weight parameter, ∅1
and ∅2 are two positive numbers called acceleration constants are usually set to be 2 and 2.1 respectively,
and 𝑟1, 𝑟2 are random number in the interval [0, 1].
3.2.1. Proposed algorithm
The proposed PSO-based algorithm of allocating and sizing the FACTS devices for improving
voltage stability is implemented as follows [36-38]:
Step 1: Specify the PSO parameters: initial velocity, number of particles and max iteration.
Step 2: Initialize FACTS location and sizing for each particle (TCSC or SVC controller.
Step 3: Run Newton Raphson power flow program and compute objective functions.
Step 4: Determine and store pbest and gbest for all particles.
Step 5: Cheek max iteration is reached (Yes or No), if Yes go to step 7, while if No go to step 6.
Step 6: Update velocity and particle position and repeat the process until to reach max iteration (go to step 3).
Step 7: Print the store result (optimal placement and value of FACTS device).
Regarding TCSC, the particles are defined as a vector which contains the locations of (line number)
and sizes of TCSC controller. Whereas, the SVC vector includes the SVC bus locations and their sizes as
shown below [6, 32]:
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒: [𝐿𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑁 𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶𝑠𝑖] (22)
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒: [𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑁 𝑆𝑉𝐶𝑠𝑖] (23)
where, 𝐿𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑁 is the line location number of TCSC, 𝑇𝐶𝑆𝐶𝑠𝑖 is the sizing of TCSC, 𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑁 is the bus location
number of SVC and 𝑆𝑉𝐶𝑠𝑖 is the sizing of SVC.
4. SIMULATION TESTS
The performance of the proposed algorithm is evaluated using simulations tests on Diyala 10-bus
which is a part of the Iraqi 132 kV power grid. The single-line diagram of the test system is shown in
Figure 3. The data of Diyala 10-bus test system are given in [24-26]. MATLAB R2017a is used for
implementing the algorithm. Two case studies are carried out to evaluate the proposed methodology before
and after allocating of FACTS devices:
Figure 3. Single-line diagram of diyala 10-bus system (132 kV)

989
4.1. Detection of the weakest bus
In order to study the voltage collapse point and detect weakest bus in the system, the voltage
stability margin are carried out on Diyala 10-bus test system with two types of stability index: (dS/dY) and
VCPI. Regarding the first index (dS/dY), the load admittance of the test system is increased in a range of six
steps (from the base case of the load to six times of the load). The incremental increasing of the system’s load
while applying first index leads to the response shown in Figure 4 which reveals the rank of the buses
according their voltage collapse. The weakest bus is the closest one to zero which is BLDZ bus.
On the other hand, for the VCPI index, the load (active and reactive parts) of the test system is
increased in steps from the base load to four times of the base load. Applying the VCPI while increasing the
load results in the response of the buses according to their voltage collapse as shown in Figure 5. Again,
BLDZ bus is the weakest bus as it is the closest to one. Overall, the rank ordering of the system buses
according to their response to voltage collapse without FACT devices is as shown in Table 1.
Figure 4. dS/dY vs load admittance Figure 5. VCPI vs loading factor
Table 1. Weakest bus ranking
Rank order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dS/dY BLDZ MQDA KNKN HMRN BQBE KALS BQBW
VCPI BLDZ MQDA KNKN BQBE HMRN BQBW KALS
4.2. Allocating the FACTS devices
The proposed PSO-based algorithm is executed for multiple iterations to determine the optimal
placement and sizing of FACTS devices meet the optimization constraints. The number of populations is 20
and the maximum iteration is 30. Regarding the improvement of voltage stability margin, both TCSC and
SVC controllers are employed in this paper. The PSO algorithm is used to generate the optimal location and
sizing of TCSC and SVC controllers by minimizing the objective function of (18).
From the single-line diagram of Diyala 10-bus power system is shown in Figure 3, all the single line
circuits (from line 7 to line 15) are assigned locations for installing the TCSC controller. Therefore, line 7
and line 15 are represented for minimum and maximum location number of TCSC respectively. Similarly, all
the load buses (from bus 4 to bus 10) are chosen locations for injection the SVC controller and therefore, bus
4 and bus 10 are assigned for minimum and maximum location number of SVC respectively. Based on the
proposed method, the optimal values and placements of TCSC and SVC devices are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Locations and sizing of TCSC and SVC
TCSC
Location (Line) XTCSC size (p.u.) PLI VMI ∆dS/dY ∆VCPI J
DAL3-BLDZ -0.1117 -0.028 0.024 0.478 -0.247 -0.194
SVC
Location (Bus) QSVC size (Mvar) PLI VMI ∆dS/dY ∆VCPI J
MQDA 51.005 -0.656 0.070 0.236 -0.202 -0.291

 ISSN: 2088-8708
990
The enhancement of the test system performance due to utilizing the FACTS devices (TCSC and
SVC) is demonstrated in the Figures 6 and 7 using the response to the two indices (dS/dY and VCPI). From
Figure 6, it is evident that the voltage stability margin of BLDZ bus is improved as the voltage collapse point
become higher which refers to more flexibility toward overloading and hence, load shedding case. On the
other hand, the VCPI is also improved as it becomes more stable on load increasing as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6. dS/dY vs load admittance at BLDZ bus Figure 7. VCPI vs loading factor at BLDZ bus
Figure 8 illustrates the behavior of the objective function to determine the optimal values and
locations of TCSC and SVC controller during the optimization process. It can be observed that the SVC has
minimum and faster convergence compared with TCSC to achieve the objective function. Furthermore, the
overall performance is improved for the whole buses of the system by enhanced the voltage profile, phase
angle difference and power losses. Figure 9 illustrates the voltage profile of the test system before and after
installing the FACTS devices where the voltages of buses BLDZ, MQDA and KNKN are significantly
enhanced. Whereas, the results show that the percentage reduction rate of power losses is 7.22%.
Figure 8. Convergence rate of the objective function Figure 9. Voltage profile of diyala 10-bus
5. CONCLUSION
The paper proposes a methodology to detect the weakest bus of power systems using two indices:
first is the voltage stability margin factor (dS/dY) and second is the voltage collapse prediction index (VCPI).
The propose method utilizes a PSO-based algorithm to select the optimal locations and ratings of FACTS
devices. The results show that the weakest bus in Diyala-10 bus power network is BLDZ. Based on the

991
proposed method, the optimal location of TCSC is line (DAL3-BLDZ). Whereas, the optimal location of
SVC is MQDA bus. Both TCSC and SVC show capability to improve the voltage profile of the power
system, reducing the power losses, and enhancing the overall performance of the system by reducing the
phase angles difference. The optimization results show that the PSO algorithm provides validate solutions
when implemented for FACTS devices on power systems.
REFERENCES
[1] C. W. Taylor, “Power System Voltage Stability,” New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[2] P. Kundur, et al., “Definition and Classification of Power System Stability,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 19, pp. 1387-1401, 2004.
[3] S. Kihwele, “Enhancement of Voltage Stability Margin Using FACTS Devices for 132 kV Tanzania Grid
Network,” IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication, 2019, pp. 1-3.
[4] T. He, et al., “Identification of weak locations in bulk transmission systems using voltage stability margin index,”
International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems, 2004, pp. 878-882.
[5] S. A. Soliman, et al., “Power System Voltage Stability Margin identification Using Local Measurements,” Large
Engineering Systems Conference on Power Engineering, 2003, pp. 100-104.
[6] S. Chansareewittaya and P. Jirapong, “Power transfer capability enhancement with multitype FACTS controllers
using hybrid particle swarm optimization,” Electrical Engineering, vol. 97, pp. 119-127, 2015.
[7] S. K. A. Hassan and F. M. Tuaimah, “Optimal location of unified power flow controller genetic algorithm based,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 886-894, 2020.
[8] A. Wiszniewski, “New criteria of voltage stability margin for the purpose of load shedding,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 22, pp. 1367-1371, 2007.
[9] A. R. Phadke, et al., “A new technique for on-line monitoring of voltage stability margin using local signals,” in
Fifteenth National Power Systems Conference, 2008, pp. 488-492.
[10] V. Balamourougan, et al., “Technique for online prediction of voltage collapse,” IEE Proceedings-Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, vol. 151, 2004, pp. 453-460.
[11] M. Nizam, et al., “Dynamic voltage collapse prediction on a practical power system using power transfer stability
index,” IEEE 5th Student Conference on Research and Development, 2007, pp. 1-6.
[12] J. Lakkireddy, et al., “Steady state voltage stability enhancement using shunt and series FACTS devices,” IEEE
Clemson University Power Systems Conference, 2015, pp. 1-5.
[13] A. Sode-Yome, et al., “A comprehensive comparison of FACTS devices for enhancing static voltage stability,”
2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007, pp. 1-8.
[14] M. A. Kamarposhti and H. Lesani, “Effects of STATCOM, TCSC, SSSC and UPFC on static voltage stability,”
Electrical Engineering, vol. 93, pp. 33-42, 2011.
[15] M. Zadehbagheri, et al., “Review of the UPFC Different Models in Recent Years,” International Journal of Power
Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 343-355, 2014.
[16] I. Azim and F. Rahman, “Genetic Algorithm Based Reactive Power Management by SVC,” International Journal
of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 200-206, 2014.
[17] C. Li, et al., “Optimal allocation of multi-type FACTS devices in power systems based on power flow entropy,”
Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 2, pp. 173-180, 2014.
[18] N. Yorino, et al., “A new formulation for FACTS allocation for security enhancement against voltage collapse,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 18, pp. 3-10, 2003.
[19] S. Mollazei, et al., “Multi-objective optimization of power system performance with TCSC using the MOPSO
algorithm,” 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Tampa, FL, 2007, pp. 1-8.
[20] R. Minguez, et al., “Optimal Network Placement of SVC Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22,
no. 4, pp. 1851-1860, 2007.
[21] B. Kumar, et al., “Placement of FACTS controllers using modal controllability indices to damp out power system
oscillations,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 1, pp. 209-217, 2007.
[22] N. Sharma, et al., “A novel placement strategy for FACTS controllers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 18, pp. 982-987, 2003.
[23] M. A. Kamarposhti, et al., “Comparison of SVC, STATCOM, TCSC, and UPFC Controllers for Static Voltage
Stability Evaluated by Continuation Power Flow Method,” IEEE 8th Annual Electrical Power & Energy
Conference, Vancouver, BC, 2008, pp. 1-8.
[24] G. A. Salman, et al., “Implementation Optimal Location and Sizing of UPFC on Iraqi Power System Grid (132 kV)
Using Genetic Algorithm,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 1607-1615, 2018.
[25] G. A. Salman, “Implementation SVC and TCSC to Improvement the Efficacy of Diyala Electric Network
(132 kV),” American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), vol. 4, pp. 163-170, 2015.
[26] H. I. Hussein, et al., “Phase Measurement Units based FACT’s Devices for the Improvement of Power Systems
Networks Controllability,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 888-899, 2018.
[27] K. Venkateswarlu, et al., “Improvement of Voltage Stability and Reduce Power Losses by Optimal Placement of
UPFC device by using GA and PSO,” International Journal of Engineering Sciences Research, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 66-75, 2001.

 ISSN: 2088-8708
992
[28] S. Gerbex, et al., “Optimal location of multi-type FACTS devices in a power system by means of genetic
algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, pp. 537-544, 2001.
[29] C. Rodríguez and M. A. Rios, “Sizing and location of shunt FACTS devices in power system using genetic
algorithms,” 2013 IEEE Grenoble Conference, Grenoble, 2013, pp. 1-6.
[30] W. Ongsakul and P. Jirapong, “Optimal allocation of FACTS devices to enhance total transfer capability using
evolutionary programming,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS),
vol. 5, 2005, pp. 4175-4178.
[31] H. Shaheen, et al., “Optimal location and parameters setting of unified power flow controller based on evolutionary
optimization techniques,” Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007, pp. 1-8.
[32] D. Mondal, et al., “Optimal placement and parameter setting of SVC and TCSC using PSO to mitigate small signal
stability problem,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 42, pp. 334-340, 2012.
[33] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization in,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Neural Networks, 1995, pp. 1942-1948.
[34] J. Kennedy and R. Mendes, “Neighborhood topologies in fully-informed and bestof-neighborhood particle
swarms,” IEEE International Workshop on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, 2003, pp. 45-50.
[35] Y. del Valle, et al., “Particle Swarm Optimization: Basic Concepts, Variants and Applications in Power System,”
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, pp. 171-195, 2008.
[36] G. A. Salman, et al., “Enhancement The Dynamic Stability of The Iraq's Power Station Using PID Controller
Optimized by FA and PSO Based on Different Objective Functions,” Elektrotehniški Vestnik, vol. 85, pp. 42-48,
2018.
[37] H. I. Hussein, et al., “Employment of PSO algorithm to improve the neural network technique for radial distribution
system state estimation,” International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, vol. 12, pp. 1-10, 2019.
[38] G. A. Salman, et al., “Application of artificial intelligence techniques for LFC and AVR systems using PID
controller,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1694-1704,
2019.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Ghassan Abdullah Salman received his B.Sc. degree in engineering of Power and Electrical
Machines in 2006 from the University of Diyala. He received his M.Sc. degree in Electrical
Power engineering in 2011 from the University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq. Currently, he is
an Assistant Professor at University of Diyala, Baqubah, Iraq. His research focuses on power
system optimization, power system operation and control, FACTS devices, power system
security and power system stability.
Hatim Ghadhban Abood had graduated at the University of Diyala in 2006, majoring in
Electrical Power Engineering. He had received the degree of M.Sc. in Electrical Power
engineering from the University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq, in 2009. He works as a lecturer
in the college of Engineering, Diyala university since April 2012. Later, Hatim finished the
Ph.D. at The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia in April 2018. His research
focuses on power system state estimation, and applications of artificial intelligence techniques
in power systems.
Mayyadah Sahib Ibrahim received her B.Sc. degree in engineering of Power and Electrical
Machines in 2004 from the University of Diyala. She received his M.Sc. degree from technical
state university of southern Russia in 2013. She is currently an Assistant Lecturer at University
of Diyala, Baqubah, Iraq. Her current research interests are optimization of power system,
electrical machine and programmable logic controller. She has experience in practice of
electrical engineering in different fields such as electrical machines.

Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system using the optimal values of FACTS devices

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Similar to Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system using the optimal values of FACTS devices (20)

More from IJECEIAES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Improvement the voltage stability margin of Iraqi power system using the optimal values of FACTS devices