See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266030727

Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOMs in Power Systems using Heuristic

Optimization Techniques

Chapter · September 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-281-4_13

CITATIONS READS

5 432

1 author:

Reza Sirjani
Eastern Mediterranean University
42 PUBLICATIONS   474 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization Algorithm View project

fuel cell prognostic and diagnostic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Sirjani on 15 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 13
Optimal Placement and Sizing
of STATCOM in Power Systems Using
Heuristic Optimization Techniques

Reza Sirjani

Abstract The benefits of reactive power compensation depend greatly on the

placement and size of the compensators. STATCOM is a shunt compensator and one
of the important members of the Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) family
that are increasingly being used in long transmission lines in modern power systems.
The FACTS devices placement problem is commonly solved using heuristic opti-
mization techniques which are diverse and have been the subject of ongoing
enhancements. This chapter, in the first stage, presents a survey of the literature from
the last decade that has focused on the various heuristic optimization techniques
applied to determine optimal placement and sizing of the STATCOM. In the second
stage, the application of the global harmony search (GHS) algorithm as a new meta-
heuristic optimization method for determining the optimal location and size of
STATCOM in a transmission network is presented. The algorithm is easy to be
implemented and capable of finding multiple optimal solutions to the constrained
multi-objective problem, providing more flexibility in making decisions about the
location of STATCOM. Power system loss reduction, bus voltage profile improve-
ment, voltage stability enhancement and device size are employed as measures of
power system performance in the optimization algorithm. The proposed multi-
objective GHS algorithm is validated on 57 and 118-bus transmission networks.

Keywords STATCOM Power loss Modal analysis Optimization techniques

Harmony search algorithm

R. Sirjani (&)
Faculty of Engineering, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Mersin 10,
Northern Cyprus, Turkey
e-mail: rsirjani@ciu.edu.tr

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015 437

F. Shahnia et al. (eds.), Static Compensators (STATCOMs) in Power Systems,
Power Systems, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-281-4_13
438 R. Sirjani

13.1 Introduction

Reactive power compensation is used to influence the natural electrical character-

istics of a transmission line to increase the steady-state transmittable power and to
control the voltage profile along the line. A number of reactive compensation
devices such as shunt capacitor, static VAr compensator (SVC) and STATCOM
have long been applied by electric power utilities for this purpose. STATCOMs
have a variety of applications in the operation and control of power systems, such as
scheduling power flow, decreasing unsymmetrical components, damping power
oscillations and enhancing transient stability [1–4]. STATCOM is a shunt-con-
nected reactive compensation device that is capable of generating and absorbing
reactive power. Its output can be varied to maintain and control specific parameters
of an electric power system [5]. The improvement in static voltage stability and the
reduced losses that result from using a STATCOM have been demonstrated in
Shaygan et al. [6]. The results show that the installation of a STATCOM in critical
buses is an effective solution for reducing active and reactive losses, and this type of
FACTS device can improve static voltage stability for both the base system and the
stressed system. The system dynamics influencing voltage stability are usually
slow. Therefore, many aspects of the power system can be analysed effectively by
using static methods that examine the viability of an equilibrium point representing
a specific condition of the system. The static analysis techniques allow the exam-
ination of a wide range of system conditions and, if appropriately used, can provide
much insight into the nature of the problem and the identification of the key
contributing factors. One of the suitable methods for static voltage stability analysis
is modal analysis. In this method, the system voltage stability characteristics can be
identified by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a reduced Jacobian
matrix [7].
Because of economical considerations, the installation of a FACTS controller in
every bus is impossible and unnecessary. Identifying the best locations for
STATCOMs entails calculating steady-state conditions for the network. However,
because the load flow equations are nonlinear, the problem becomes very complex,
and an extensive investigation has to be undertaken to solve the problem.
Several studies on the use of these controllers for voltage and angle stability
applications have been conducted and reported in the literature. A variety of
methods are used to optimize the allocation of these devices in power systems.
These methods may be classified into the following categories [6]:
• Loss sensitivity analysis
• Voltage stability analysis using modal analysis and Continuation Power Flow
(CPF)
• Cost analysis using Optimal Power Flow (OPF)
• Heuristic optimization techniques
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 439

From the categories, the heuristic optimization techniques have been widely
applied in solving the optimal STATCOM placement problem. In this chapter, a
comprehensive analysis of the heuristic optimization techniques for optimal
placement and sizing of STATCOMs that have been proposed recently by various
researchers is presented. This analysis includes important heuristic optimization
techniques such as Evolution Strategies (ES), Genetic Algorithms (GA), Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Harmony Search (HS) algorithms used in solving
power system optimization problems. In addition, applications of hybrid techniques
in optimal STATCOM placement problems are discussed.
In the next stage, a new optimization technique, the GHS algorithm is used to
find the optimal placement and sizing of STATCOM in power systems. The har-
mony search algorithm is a meta-heuristic optimization method that is inspired by
musicians adjusting the pitches of their instruments to find better harmony [8]. It
has several advantages over other methods, such as not requiring initial value
settings for the decision variables and handling both discrete and continuous
variables. In this research, the suitable buses are first identified using modal anal-
ysis. Next, the global harmony search algorithm is employed to determine the
amount of shunt compensation required for loss minimization and voltage
improvement with respect to the size of the STATCOM. The results obtained using
the proposed algorithm in 57 and 118-bus test systems are compared with other
optimization methods for validation.

13.2 STATCOM Placement and Sizing Using Optimization

Techniques

Recently, heuristic optimization techniques have become a popular choice for

solving complex and intricate problems which are otherwise difficult to solve by
traditional methods [9]. In the past few decades, several global optimization
algorithms have been developed that are based on the nature inspired analogy.
These are mostly population based heuristics, also called general purpose algo-
rithms because of their applicability to a wide range of problems [9]. Some popular
global optimization algorithms include ESs [10], GAs [11, 12], Simulated
Annealing (SA) [13], Artificial Immune Systems (AIS) [14], Ant Colony Optimi-
zation (ACO) [15], PSO [16], HS algorithms [8], Bee Colony Optimization (BCO)
[17], and others.
This section presents the basic knowledge of evolutionary computation and other
heuristic optimization techniques as well as how they are combined with knowledge
elements in computational intelligence systems. Applications to the optimal
placement and sizing of STATCOMs in power networks are emphasized, and
recent research is presented and discussed.
440 R. Sirjani

13.2.1 Evolution Strategies (ES)

The ES optimization technique was introduced in the early 1960s and developed
further in the 1970s by Rechenberg and Schwefel at the University of Berlin in
Germany. It was originally created to solve technical optimization problems, and its
first application was in the area of hydrodynamics [18]. Nowadays, the ES is
recognized as a very strong optimization method capable of solving large scale,
multimodal, highly constrained, nonlinear problems. The main search procedure in
the ES is the mutation operator that generates random samples around search points
(solution candidates) selected from a population of different search points. The
original strategy, denoted by 1 + 1, generates one offspring from a single parent by
applying mutation. If the child performs better than its ancestor, it will be the parent
of the next generation [19].
An ES was developed to obtain the best points of operation of FACTS devices
[20]. The objective function was defined to adjust the control variables of the SVC,
STATCOM, and UPFC in order to improve the power system operation by
reducing losses that electric network suffers under a certain load condition, taking
into account the voltage drop constraints and operation limits of the devices. The
ES developed in this paper was applied to various power systems with satisfactory
results and low computational effort.

13.2.2 Genetic Algorithm (GA)

GA is one of the most popular types of evolutionary algorithms. To be more

precise, it constitutes a computing model for simulating natural and genetic
selection that is related to the biological evolution described in Darwin’s Theory
[11, 12]. In this computing model, a population of abstract representations called as
chromosomes or the genome of candidate solutions called as individuals, to an
optimization problem could result in better solutions. They are traditionally rep-
resented in binary form as strings comprised of 0s and 1s with fixed length. But
other kinds of encoding are also possible which include real values and order
chromosomes. The program then assigns proper number of bits and coding [9].
Being a member of the evolutionary computation family, the first step in GA is
population initialization, which is usually done stochastically. GA usually uses
three simple operators called as selection, recombination or crossover and mutation
[9]. Selection is the step of a GA in which a certain number of individuals are
chosen from the current population for later breeding (recombination or crossover);
the rate of choosing is normally proportional to the individual’s fitness value.
There are several general selection techniques, namely, tournament selection and
fitness proportionality selection which is also known as roulette-wheel selection.
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 441

Other techniques only choose those individuals with a fitness value greater than a
given arbitrary constant. Taken together, crossover and mutation are called repro-
duction which is analogous to biological crossover and mutation [9]. The advan-
tages and disadvantages of GA are described as follows [9, 11]:
The advantages of GA:
• It can solve every optimization problem which can be described with the
chromosome encoding.
• It solves problems with multiple solutions.
• Since GA execution technique is not dependent on the error surface, it can be
used for solving multi-dimensional, non-differential, non-continuous, and even
non-parametrical problems.
• GA is a technique which is easy to be understood and it practically does not
demand the knowledge of mathematics.
• GA is easily transferred to existing simulations and models.
The disadvantages of GA:
• Certain optimization problems cannot be solved by GA probably due to poorly
known fitness functions which generate bad chromosome blocks.
• There is no absolute assurance that a GA will find a global optimum.
• GA cannot assure constant optimization response times. In addition, the dif-
ference between the shortest and the longest optimization response times is
much larger than with conventional gradient methods. This disadvantage limits
the use of GA in real time applications.
• GA application in real time control is limited because of random solutions and
convergence. This means that while the entire population is improving, there is
no assurance that an individual within this population will converge to its
specified value. Therefore, it is unreasonable to use GA for on-line control in
real systems without testing it first on a simulation model.
A GA based optimization procedure has been implemented to find the best
placement, type, and size of selected FACTS devices for reducing total financial
losses in the network caused by voltage sags [21]. Three types of FACTS devices
were considered, namely, SVC, STATCOM, and Dynamic Voltage Restorer
(DVR).
Another GA based allocation of FACTS devices considered the cost function of
FACTS devices and power system losses [22]. Simulation of the test system for
different scenarios showed that the placement of multi-type FACTS devices leads to
an improvement in the voltage stability margin of power system and reduction of
losses.
An optimization method termed “the Queen Bee assisted GA” has been explored
to obtain optimal placement of FACTS devices for voltage profile enhancement
[23]. The proposed algorithm is a modification of the standard GA incorporating
the evolution of a queen bee in a hive. This algorithm converges much faster than
the standard GA with smaller number of parameters and reduced computational
burden. A performance criterion using a voltage stability index was defined to
442 R. Sirjani

quantify voltage stability at any given bus. The effectiveness of the approach was
confirmed through simulation results.
Tavakoli et al. [24] examined the average model of STATCOM in the time
domain and then adapted its power flow analysis. A combinatorial optimization was
arranged which focused on voltage stability, reactive power, and losses of trans-
mission lines as three main objectives for the power system. GA was employed to
seek the optimal solution for sizing and placing STATCOMs across the IEEE
14-bus network, while a correcting power ratio was defined for adapting the opti-
mized values with those obtained by the average model.
An approach based on sensitivity analysis and GA was applied to optimally
locate STATCOM in a distribution network [25]. A step-by-step sensitivity analysis
approach is utilized to find optimal placement of compensators. In this process, a
compound voltage-loss sensitivity index is used to meet various optimization
requirements. In the next step, reactive power injection of the STATCOM is defined
by the GA. The objective function takes into account voltage stability, reduction of
active losses and reduction of reactive power in a power network.

13.2.3 Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO algorithm belongs to the category of evolutionary computation for solving

global optimization problems. The the PSO algorithm was first introduced for
solving optimization problem in 1995 by Eberhart and Kennedy [16]. PSO is a well
known and popular search strategy that has gained widespread appeal amongst
researchers and has been shown to offer good performance in a variety of appli-
cation domains, with potential for hybridization and specialization. It is a simple
and robust strategy based on the social and cooperative behaviour shown by various
species like flocks of bird, schools of fish, and so on. PSO and its variants have been
effectively applied to a wide range of real life optimization problems [9].
From the literature, it is noted that PSO has advantages and disadvantages which
are described as follows [9, 16]:
The advantages of PSO:
• PSO is based on intelligence which can be applied for both scientific research
and engineering use.
• PSO have no overlapping and mutation calculation and the search can be carried
out based on the speed of a particle. In the development of several generations,
only the most optimist particle can transmit information onto the other particles,
and the speed of the researching is very fast.
• The calculation in PSO is very simple compared with other optimization tech-
niques and its optimization ability is stronger.
• PSO adopts real number code, and it is decided directly by a solution. The
number of the dimension is equal to the constant of a solution.
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 443

The disadvantages of PSO:

• PSO easily suffers from partial optimism, which reduces the accuracy and speed
of finding the velocity and position vectors.
• PSO has difficulty in finding optimal design parameters and its accuracy
depends on the initial conditions and the parameter values selected.
Del Valle et al. [26] demonstrated the application of PSO for optimal sizing and
location of STATCOM in a power system, considering voltage deviation con-
straints at each bus. Results from the illustrative example showed that the PSO is
able to find the solution with the best size and location with a high degree of
convergence and with statistical significance when the minimum, maximum,
average and standard deviation values of the voltage deviation metric are evaluated.
Hernandez et al. [27] demonstrated the feasibility of applying the PSO technique
in solving optimal allocation of a STATCOM in a 45-bus section of the Brazilian
power system. The technique was able to find the best location for the STATCOM
in order to optimize the system voltage profile with a low degree of uncertainty.
Another approach for optimal placement of STATCOMs in power systems was
proposed using simultaneous application of PSO and CPF in order to improve the
voltage profile, minimize the power system’s total losses, and maximize the system
load-ability with respect to the size of the STATCOM [5].
The PSO technique has also been applied to determine the optimal location and
controller parameters of STATCOM [28]. Here, a systematic procedure to deter-
mine the optimal location of the STATCOM for transient stability improvement
following a severe disturbance was presented. The application of PSO for sizing
and locating a STATCOM in a power system while considering voltage deviation
constraints was demonstrated in [29]. Results from the illustrative example showed
that the PSO techniques is able to find the best size and location with statistical
significance and a high degree of convergence when evaluating the minimum,
maximum, average, and standard deviation values of the voltage deviation metric.
To find the optimal location and sizing of a STATCOM in a power system for
voltage profile improvement, different variations of the PSO techniques have been
applied [30]. From among the various PSO techniques, namely, the classical PSO,
PSO time varying inertia weight, PSO random inertia weight and PSO time varying
acceleration coefficients (PSO-TVAC), the PSO-TVAC model was found to be
superior in terms of computational speed and accuracy of solution [30]. The effect
of population size and initial and final values of acceleration coefficients was also
investigated in this paper.

13.2.4 Harmony Search (HS) Algorithm

The HS algorithm is an optimization technique that is inspired by musicians

improvising their instrument pitches to find better harmony [8]. In the same way as
musical instruments can be played with discrete musical notes based on player
444 R. Sirjani

experience or based on random processes in improvisation, optimal design variables

can be obtained with certain discrete values based on computational intelligence
and random processes [31]. Music players improve their experience based on
aesthetic standards while design variables in computer memory can be improved
based on an objective function. Among the advantages of the HS algorithm are that
it can consider both discontinuous and continuous functions because it does not
require differential gradients, it does not require initial value setting for the vari-
ables, it is free from divergence, and it may escape local optima [31]. The HS
algorithm has the following merits [8, 31]:
• HS does not require differential gradients, thus it can consider discontinuous
functions as well as continuous functions.
• HS can handle discrete variables as well as continuous variables.
• HS does not require initial value setting for the variables.
• HS is free from divergence.
• HS may escape local optima.
• HS may overcome the drawback of GA building block theory which works well
only if the relationship among variables in a chromosome is carefully consid-
ered. If neighbour variables in a chromosome have weaker relationship than
remote variables, the building block theory may not work well because of
crossover operation. However, HS explicitly considers the relationship using
ensemble operation.
• HS has a novel stochastic derivative applied to discrete variables, which uses
musician’s experiences as a searching direction.
In [32], the improved harmony search algorithm (IHS) is used to determine the
optimal location and size of STATCOMs in a transmission network. The problem is
decomposed into two sub-problems. The first sub-problem is the optimal placement
of STATCOM devices using the modal analysis method. The second sub-problem
is the optimization of the load flow by setting STATCOM parameters using the
improved harmony search algorithm. A multi-criterion objective function is defined
to enhance the voltage stability, improve the voltage profile and minimise power
loss while considering the total STATCOM size. The results from a 57-bus test
system show that the IHS algorithm produces a lower power loss, better voltage
profile and greater voltage stability than the traditional harmony search algorithm
and particle swarm optimization techniques in solving the STATCOM placement
and sizing problem.

13.2.5 Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Techniques

To create a hybrid intelligent system, two or more artificial intelligence techniques

are applied. During the last decade, hybrid systems have been applied in engi-
neering applications. A combination of Modified Simulated Annealing (MSA) and
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 445

PSO techniques has been proposed to minimize total losses in a power system with
FACTS devices [33]. The problem was decomposed into two sub-problems in
which the first sub-problem considered optimal placement of FACTS devices using
a line loss sensitivity index and the second sub-problem considered load flow with
FACTS parameters using the MSA/PSO techniques.

13.2.6 Comparison of Various Heuristic Optimization

Techniques

The number of publications and the heuristic optimization techniques applied to

solve the optimal STATCOM placement problem in the specified period are shown
in Fig. 13.1. The PSO, GA, and hybrid methods have been the most popular
optimization techniques for solving the optimal STATCOM placement problem in
the last decade.
From the figure, PSO is the most popular technique applied because of its
advantages, which include simple implementation, small computational load, and
fast convergence. PSO is efficient for solving many problems for which it is difficult
to find accurate mathematical models. However, the PSO algorithm is prone to
relapsing into local minima and premature convergence when solving complex
optimization problems. The GA, which is considered one of the first global opti-
mization techniques for solving the optimal FACTS placement problem, has some
drawbacks such as divergence and local optima problems. Many recent publications
use hybrid techniques or multi-stage methodologies to find the optimal locations
and sizes of STATCOMs. In most of these hybrid techniques, approaches are
proposed to find the critical buses, while other optimization techniques such as PSO
and GA are used to find the optimal sizes of the STATCOM.

Fig. 13.1 Number of papers published on different optimization techniques for optimal
STATCOM placement
446 R. Sirjani

13.3 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM Using

GHS Algorithm

13.3.1 STATCOM Modelling

Typically, a STATCOM consists of a coupling transformer, an inverter, and a DC

capacitor. For an ideal steady-state analysis, the active power exchange between the
AC system and the STATCOM is assumed negligible and only reactive power is
exchanged between them [6, 34]. The schematic representation of STATCOM and
its equivalent circuit are shown in Fig. 13.2a, b, respectively.
In Fig. 13.2a, the shunt-connected transformer is assumed to be ideal. STAT-
COM is implemented so that the active power flow between the AC source and the
Voltage Source Converter (VSC) is controlled by a phase angle, and the reactive
power flow is determined mainly by the magnitude of the voltage source (Vk) and
the VSC output fundamental voltage (VvR). VSC generates reactive power when
VvR > Vk and consumes reactive power when VvR < Vk. During normal operation, a
small amount of active power flows into the VSC to compensate for the power
losses inside the VSC, and δ is kept slightly larger than zero for lagging power
factor [34]. The STATCOM equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 13.2b is used to derive
the mathematical model of the controller for inclusion in the power flow algorithm.
The power flow equations for bus i of the power system with no FACTS controllers
are given by,

X
n  
Pi ¼ Vi2 Gii  Vi Vm ½Gim cosðhi  hm Þ þ Bim sinðhi  hm Þ ð13:1Þ
m¼1

X
n  
Qi ¼ Vi2 Bii þ Vi Vm ½Gim cosðhi  hm Þ  Bim cosðhi  hm Þ ð13:2Þ
m¼1

With the addition of a STATCOM connected at bus k, the system power flow
equations remain the same as the equations of a system without a STATCOM for
all buses given by (13.1) and (13.2) except for bus k. The power flow equations for

Fig. 13.2 STATCOM representation a VSC connected to the AC network via a transformer,
b Shunt solid-state voltage source [34]
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 447

the STATCOM in a two-bus system shown in Fig. 13.2b are derived by first
considering the voltage source and the complex power which are given by,

EvR ¼ VvR ðcos dvR þ j sin dvR Þ ð13:3Þ

  
SvR ¼ VvR IvR ¼ VvR YvR ðVvR  Vk Þ ð13:4Þ

By substituting (13.3) into (13.4), the active and reactive power equations at the
converter terminal and bus k are obtained as follows [6]:

PvR ¼ VvR
2
GvR  Vk VvR ½GvR cosðdvR  hk Þ þ BvR sinðdvR  hk Þ ð13:5Þ

QvR ¼ VvR
2
BvR þ Vk VvR ½BvR cosðdvR  hk Þ  GvR sinðdvR  hk Þ ð13:6Þ

Pk ¼ Vk2 GvR  Vk VvR ½GvR cosðhk  dvR Þ þ BvR sinðhk  dvR Þ ð13:7Þ

Qk ¼ Vk2 BvR þ Vk VvR ½BvR cosðhk  dvR Þ  GvR sinðhk  dvR Þ ð13:8Þ

These equations for two-bus power system are obtained. Thus, for an n-bus
power system, the active and reactive power equations at bus k (i.e. the bus where
the STATCOM is connected) are given as follows:

PK ¼ VvR
2
GvR  VK VvR ½GvR cosðdvR  hK Þ þ BvR sinðdvR  hK Þ
Xn   ð13:9Þ
þ VK2 GKK  VK Vm ½GKm cosðhK  hm Þ þ Bim sinðhK  hm Þ
m¼1

QK ¼ VK2 BvR þ VK VvR ½BvR cosðhK  dvR Þ  GvR sinðhK  dvR Þ

Xn  
þ VK2 BKK þ VK Vm ½GKm cosðhK  hm Þ  BKm sinðhK  hm Þ
m¼1
ð13:10Þ

Using these power equations, the linearized STATCOM model is derived as

shown in (13.11), where the voltage magnitude VvR and phase angle δvR are con-
sidered as state variables:
2 3
2 3 oPK oPK oPK oPK 2 3
DPK ohK oVK VK odvR oVvR VvR DhK
6 oQ oQK oQK oQK 7
6 DQK 7 6 oh K oVK VK oVvR VvR
7 6 DV K 7
6 7 6 K odvR 7  6 VK 7
4 DPvR 5 ¼ 6 oPvR oPvR oPvR oPvR 7 4 DdvR 5 ð13:11Þ
4 ohK oVK VK odvR oVvR VvR 5 DVvR
DQvR oQvR oQvR oQvR oQvR
oVK VK oVvR VvR
VvR
ohK odvR

.
448 R. Sirjani

13.3.2 Modal Analysis for Determining STATCOM

Placement

Modal or eigenvalue analysis of the Jacobian (J) matrix of system load flow
equation, near the point of voltage collapse, has been widely used to identify buses
vulnerable to voltage collapse and locations for injecting reactive power into the
system [6]. The participation of each load in the critical mode determines the
importance of the load in voltage collapse. The degree of participation is determined
from an inspection of the entries of the left eigenvector of the critical mode. Right
eigenvector components indicate the degree to which given variables are involved in
a given mode. The use of both left and right eigenvector information leads to the
notion of participation factors that indicate which generators should be motivated to
inject more active or reactive power into the system [35]. Here, modal analysis is
used for determining optimal placement of VAr compensators which are normally
installed in power transmission systems for voltage stability improvement.
In the modal analysis method, the Jacobian matrix of the operating point of a
power system is calculated [36]. For this purpose, the power flow equation line-
arized around the operating point is considered and given as follows:
    
DP J JPV Dh
¼ Ph ð13:12Þ
DQ JQh JQV DV

where ΔP is the incremental change in the bus active power, ΔQ is the incremental
change in the bus reactive power, Δθ is the incremental change in the bus voltage
angle, and ΔV is the incremental change in the bus voltage magnitude. Jpθ, JPV, JQθ,
and JQV are the Jacobian matrix elements representing the sensitivity of the power
flow to bus voltage changes.
System voltage stability is affected by both P and Q, however, at each operating
point, P can be kept constant and voltage stability can be evaluated by considering
the incremental relationship between Q and V. If the active power P is kept constant
in (13.1), then DP ¼ 0 and (13.12) becomes,

DQ ¼ JR DV ð13:13Þ

where JR is the reduced Jacobian matrix system given by

1
JR ¼ ½JQV  JQh JPh JPV  ð13:14Þ

The power network modes can be defined by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors
of JR which can be written as

JR ¼ n K g ð13:15Þ
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 449

where n is the right eigenvector matrix of JR, g is the left eigenvector matrix of JR,
and K is the diagonal eigenvalue matrix of JR.
The inverse of JR is then given by,

JR1 ¼ n K1 g ð13:16Þ

Substituting (13.16) into (13.13) yields

DV ¼ ðn K1 gÞ DQ ð13:17Þ

or
X ðni gÞ
DV ¼ i
DQ ð13:18Þ
i
ki

where ki is the ith eigenvalue, ni is the ith column right eigenvector of JR, and gi is
the ith row left eigenvector of JR. ki , ni , and gi define the ith mode of the system.
The ith modal reactive power variation is given by,

DQmi ¼ ji ni ð13:19Þ

where ki is a normalization factor such that

X
j2i n2ij ¼ 1 ð13:20Þ
J

and nij is the jth element of ni .

The ith modal voltage variation can therefore be written as

DVmi ¼ 1=ki DQmi ð13:21Þ

From (13.21), the stability of mode i with respect to reactive power changes is
defined by the modal eigenvalue, ki . Large values of ki suggest small changes in the
modal voltage for reactive power changes. As the system is stressed, the value of ki
becomes smaller, and the modal voltage becomes weaker. If the magnitude of ki is
equal to zero, the corresponding modal voltage collapses because it undergoes an
infinite change for a finite reactive power change. A system is therefore defined as
voltage stable if all the eigenvalues of JR are positive. The bifurcation or voltage
stability limit is reached when at least one eigenvalue reaches zero, i.e., when one or
more modal voltages collapse. If any of the eigenvalues are negative, the system is
unstable. The magnitude of the eigenvalues provides a relative measure of the
proximity of the system to voltage instability [36, 37].
The left and right eigenvectors corresponding to the critical modes in the system
can provide information concerning the mechanism of voltage instability by
450 R. Sirjani

identifying the elements involved in these modes. The bus participation factor that
measures the participation of the kth bus in the ith mode can be defined as

Pki ¼ nki gik ð13:22Þ

Bus participation factors corresponding to critical modes can predict areas or

nodes in the power system susceptible to voltage instability. Buses with large
participation factors in the critical mode are the most critical system buses. Thus, by
using the modal analysis method, the critical buses can be determined and these
buses are considered as suitable location for VAr compensators installation.

13.3.3 Problem Formulation for Optimal Sizing

of STATCOM

A multi-objective function consisting of shunt VAr compensator cost is considered

in searching for an optimal solution. This multi-objective function which not only
maximizes voltage stability margin but also minimizes voltage deviation, active-
power loss and cost which are described as follows:
Active power loss: The total active-power loss in a power system is given by
[38]:

X
n X
n X
n
Ploss ¼ Rl Il2 ¼ ½Vi2 þ Vj2  2Vi Vj cosðhi  hj ÞYij cos uij ð13:23Þ
l¼1 l¼1 j¼1;i6¼j

where n is the number of lines, Rl is the resistance of line l, Il is the current through
line l, Vi and θi are the voltage magnitude and angle at node i, respectively, and Yij
and φij are the magnitude and angle of the line admittance, respectively.
Voltage deviation: The voltage improvement index of a power system is defined
as the deviation from unity voltage magnitude at a bus. Thus, for a given system,
the voltage improvement index is given by [38]:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n 
uX Viref  Vi 2
Lv ¼ t ð13:24Þ
i¼1
Viref

where n is the number of buses, Viref is the reference voltage at bus i, and Vi is the
actual voltage at bus i.
Voltage stability margin: From the voltage stability viewpoint, critical modes
with the lowest eigenvalues are considered very important. The minimum eigen-
value should be increased to maximize the voltage stability margin [37].
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 451

Total injected reactive power: The total injected reactive power of VAr com-
pensator is given by [5]:

X
ns
QST ¼ Qj ð13:25Þ
j¼1

where ns is the number of VAr compensators, and Qj is the injected reactive power
of the VAr compensators.
Investment cost: Shunt VAr compensators are expensive devices and therefore
the investment cost for installing such controllers must be considered to justify the
economic viability of the devices. The total cost also depends on the size of fixed
and controlled portion of the shunt controllers. The FACTS equipment cost rep-
resent only half of the total FACTS project cost. Other costs like civil works,
installation, commissioning, insurance, engineering and project management con-
stitute the other half of the FACTS project cost.
The objective of using shunt VAr compensator is to control system variables
such as the active and reactive line power flows and bus voltages, and therefore the
following constraints are considered:
Power flow balance equations: The balance of active and reactive powers must be
satisfied at each bus. Power balance with respect to a bus can be formulated as [38] :

X
n
PGi  PLi ¼ Vi ½Vj ½G0ij cosðdi  dj Þ þ B0ij sinðdi  dj Þ ð13:26Þ
j¼1

X
n
QGi  QLi ¼ Vi ½Vj ½G0ij sinðdi  dj Þ  B0ij sinðdi  dj Þ ð13:27Þ
j¼1

where PGi and QGi are the generated active and reactive powers and PLi and QLi are
the load active and reactive powers at node i. The conductance G′ik and the sus-
ceptance B′ik represent the real and imaginary components of element Y′ij of the
[Y′nn] matrix, which are obtained by modifying the initial nodal admittance matrix.
Power flow limit: The apparent power that is transmitted through a branch l must
not exceed its limiting value, Sl max, which represents the thermal limit of a line or
transformer in steady-state operation:

Sl  Sl max ð13:28Þ

Bus voltage limits: For several reasons, such as stability and power quality, the bus
voltages must be maintained within limits around its nominal value which is given by

Vi min  Vinom  Vi max ð13:29Þ

In practice, the accepted deviation can reach up to 10 % of the nominal voltage

value.
452 R. Sirjani

The fitness function for solving the optimal sizing of VAr compensator problem
is calculated using the objective functions described in Sect. 13.3.3. The constraints
of this problem do not explicitly contain the variables. Therefore, the effect of the
constraints must be included in the fitness function value. The constraints are
separately checked, and the violations are handled using a penalty function
approach. Incorporating all of the constraints in the same mathematical function is
impossible because the three objectives are different. Thus, an overall fitness
function, in which each objective function is normalized with respect to the base
system without a VAr compensator, is considered. This fitness function is given by,

Ploss Lv kCrticalðbaseÞ Costshunt
Minff ðxÞg ¼ Min x1 P þ x2 P þ x3 þ x4
DLossbase DVbase kCritical CostMax
)
Xnr X
n X
n
v1 : bali  v2 : thermalk  v3 : voltagek
i¼1 k¼1 k¼1

ð13:30Þ

Subject to:

x1 þ x2 þ x3 þ x4 ¼ 1
ð13:31Þ
0\x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 \1

where Ploss, Lv, λCritical, and Costshunt are the total active power loss, voltage
deviation index, smallest eigenvalue, and total VAr compensator cost, respectively.
ω1, ω2, ω3, and ω4 are the coefficients of the corresponding objective functions,
P
P DLossbase is the total active power loss in the network of the base system,
Vbase is the total voltage deviation of the base system, λCritical(base) is the smallest
eigenvalue of the base case, and CostMax is the maximum cost.
In Eq. (13.30), the power loss as well as voltage deviation should be minimized
and the base case values are written in denominator whereas, for voltage stability
enhancement the eigenvalue should be maximized and the critical eigenvalue at
base case is written in numerator.
The bali element in (13.30) is a factor equal to 0 if the power balance constraint
at bus i is not violated; otherwise, bali is equal to 1. The sum of these violations
represents the total number of buses in the network that do not follow constraints
(13.26) and (13.27). This sum is multiplied by a penalty factor that increases the
fitness function to an unacceptable value, which results in an infeasible solution
that must be discarded. The second and third sums in the fitness function represent
the total number of violations of constraints (13.28) and (13.29), respectively, and
are also multiplied by penalty factors. The last three sums in this fitness function are
the measures of infeasibility for each candidate solution. The penalty factors used in
this study are χ1, χ2, and χ3, and each is set to a value equals to 100.
STATCOM is an expensive device and therefore optimum placement and sizing
of only one STATCOM in a transmission system is considered. For calculating the
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 453

cost of STATCOM there is no specific equation like the SVC [5]. Hence, the fourth
objective function component in Eq. (13.30) has been defined to having the min-
imum possible STATCOM sizes regarding to the control of STATCOM, instead of
considering the total STATCOM cost [5]. Since only one STATCOM has been
considered, it is reasonable that:

CostST QST
ffi ð13:32Þ
CostMAX QSTmax
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
For One STATCOM

where QST is the STATCOM size and QSTmax is the maximum possible STATCOM
size.
Thus, the fitness function in Eq. (13.30) has been redefined by considering
STATCOM size. The new fitness function is given by

Ploss Lv kCrticalðbaseÞ QST
MinffSTATCOM ðxÞg ¼ Min x1 P þ x2 P þ x3 þ x4
DLossbase DVbase kCritical QSTmax
)
Xnr X
n X
n
v1 : bali  v2 : thermalk  v3 : voltagek
i¼1 k¼1 k¼1

ð13:33Þ

In the optimum STATCOM placement and sizing method, modal analysis

method is first used to determine the critical system buses which are buses with
large participation factors. These buses are considered as possible locations for
STATCOM installation.
Next, the optimal placement and sizing of only one STATCOM among the
candidate buses is found by using the the GHS algorithm in which the optimal
STATCOM set 0; 0 . . . QST i ; . . . ; 0; 0 leads to maximum power loss reduction,
minimum voltage deviation and maximum eigenvalue in critical mode while con-
sidering the STATCOM size.

13.3.4 Global Harmony Search Algorithm

The harmony search (HS) algorithm is a meta-heuristic optimization algorithm

inspired by the playing of music. It uses rules and randomness to imitate natural
phenomena. Inspired by the cooperation within an orchestra, the HS algorithm
achieves an optimal solution by finding the best “harmony” among the system
components involved in a process. Just as discrete musical notes can be played
based on a player’s experience or on random processes in improvisation, optimal
design variables in a system can be obtained with certain discrete values based on
computational intelligence and random processes [12]. Musicians improve their
454 R. Sirjani

experience based on aesthetic standards, whereas design variables can be improved

based on an objective function.
The HS algorithm looks for the vector or the path of X that reduces the com-
putational cost or shortens the path. The computational procedure of the HS
algorithm is as follows [39]:
Step 1: Initialisation of the Optimization Problem
Consider an optimization problem that is described as

Minimize F ð xÞ subject to xi 2 Xi ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . N:

where F(x) is the objective function, x is the set of design variables (xi), Xi is the set
of the range of possible values for each design variable (Lxi < Xi < Uxi) and N is the
number of design variables. The following HS algorithm parameters are also
specified: the harmony memory size (HMS), or number of solution vectors in the
harmony memory; the harmony memory considering rate (HMCR); the pitch
adjusting rate (PAR); the number of decision variables (N); the number of impro-
visations (NI) and the stopping criterion.
Step 2: Initialisation of the Harmony Memory
The harmony memory (HM) matrix shown in Eq. (13.34) is filled with HMS
randomly generated solution vectors and sorted by the values of the objective
function f(x).
2 3
x11 x12 ... x1N1 x1N ) f ðxð1Þ Þ
6 x2 x22 ... x2N1 x2N 7) f ðxð2Þ Þ
6 1 7
6




7


6 7
HM ¼ 6
6




7

7
ð13:34Þ
6




7


6 7
4 xHMS1 x1HMS1 ... HMS1
xN1 xNHMS1 5
) f ðxðHMS1Þ Þ
1
xHMS
1 xHMS
1 ... xHMS
N1 xHMS
N ) f ðxðHMSÞ Þ

Step 3: Improvising a New Harmony from the HM set

A new harmony vector, x′ = (x1′, x2′, …, xn′), is generated based on three rules:
random selection, memory consideration and pitch adjustment.
• Random Selection: To determine the values xi′ for the new harmony x′ = (x1′, x2′,
… xn′), the HS algorithm randomly picks a value from the total value range with
a probability of (1-HMCR). Random selection is also used for memory
initialisation.
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 455

• Memory Consideration: To determine a value xi′, the HS algorithm randomly

picks a value xji from the HM with a probability of HMCR, where j = {1, 2,…,
HMS}.
 
x0i 2 x1i ; x2i ; . . .; xHMS with probablity HMCR
x0i i ð13:35Þ
x0i 2 Xi with probablity ð1  HMCRÞ

• Pitch Adjustment: Every component of the new harmony vector x′ = (x1′, x2′,…
xn′) is examined to determine whether it should be pitch-adjusted. After the
value xi′ is randomly picked from the HM in the memory consideration process,
it can be further adjusted by adding a certain amount to the value with proba-
bility PAR. This operation uses the PAR parameter, which is the probability of
pitch adjustment, given as follows:

Yes with probablity PAR
x0i ð13:36Þ
No with probablity ð1  PARÞ

The value of (1-PAR) sets the probability of doing nothing. If the pitch
adjustment decision for xi′ is yes, then xi′ is replaced as follows:

x0i x0i bw ð13:37Þ

where bw is the arbitrary distance bandwidth for a continuous design variable. In

this step, pitch adjustment or random selection is applied to each variable of the
new harmony vector.
Step 4: Updating the HM
If the new harmony vector x′ = (x1′, x2′, … xn′) is better than the worst harmony
in the HM, as determined from the objective function value, the new harmony is
inserted into the HM, and the worst harmony is removed from the HM [31].
Step 5: Checking the stopping criterion
If the stopping criterion, which is based on the maximum number of improvi-
sations, is satisfied, computation is terminated. Otherwise, steps 3 and 4 are
repeated.
Inspired by the swarm intelligence of particle swarm, a novel GHS algorithm is
proposed by Zou et al. [40, 41] to solve optimization problems. The GHS algorithm
includes two important operations; position updating and genetic mutation with a
small probability. The new approach modifies the improvisation step of the HS such
that the new harmony can mimic the global best harmony in the HM. The GHS and
the HS algorithms are different in three aspects described as follows [40]:
i. The HMCR and PAR are excluded from the GHS algorithm and genetic
mutation probability (pm) is included in the GHS algorithm.
456 R. Sirjani

ii. The GHS algorithm modifies the improvisation step of the HS algorithm and
this modification is represented by the following pseudo code.

Here, “best” and “worst” are the indexes of the global best harmony and the
worst harmony in HM, respectively. r1i, r2i and r3i are all the uniformly generated
random numbers in [0, 1]. r1i is used for position updating, r2i determines whether
the GHS should carry out genetic mutation, and r3i is used for genetic mutation.
Figure 13.3 illustrates the principle of position updating [40].
stepi = |xbest
i − xworst
i | is defined as adaptive step of the ith decision variable. The
region between P and R is defined as trust region for the ith decision variable. The
trust region is actually a region near the global best harmony. In the early stage of
optimization, all solution vectors are sporadic in solution space, so most trust
regions are wide, which is beneficial to the global search of the GHS; while in the
late stage of optimization, all non-best solution vectors are inclined to move to the
global best solution vector, so most solution vectors are close to each other. Here,
most trust regions are narrow, which is beneficial to the local search of the GHS
algorithm. A reasonable design for adaptive step can guarantee that the proposed
algorithm has strong global search ability in the early stage of optimization, and has
strong local search ability in the late stage of optimization. Dynamically adjusted
stepi keeps a balance between the global search and the local search [40, 41]. As for
genetic mutation operation with a small probability, it is carried out for the worst
harmony of HM after updating position, so as to enhance the capacity of escaping
from the local optimum for the proposed algorithm.

Fig. 13.3 The schematic

diagram of position updating
[40]
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 457

iii. The GHS algorithm replaces the worst harmony xworst in HM with the new
harmony x′ even if x′ is worse than xworst.
For clarity, the GHS algorithm is described in terms of a flow chart as shown in
Fig. 13.4.
In modified improvisation steps, adaptive step and trust region are defined for the
GHS, and according to these two factors, a novel position updating equation is
designed to make the worst harmony of harmony memory move to the global best
harmony in each iteration. Using position updating equation can accelerate the
convergence rate of the GHS, however, it also accelerates the premature conver-
gence of the GHS and make it get into the local optimum. To overcome these
disadvantages, genetic mutation with a small probability is introduced in the GHS
algorithm [40, 41].

13.3.5 Application of GHS Algorithm for Optimal Placement

and Sizing of STATCOM

The procedures for implementing the GHS algorithm in the optimal placement and
sizing of STATCOM are described follows:
i. Input the system parameters such as bus, branch, and generator data.
ii. Form the Jacobian matrix and calculate the eigenvalues for the base case.
iii. Calculate the eigenvectors and determine bus participation factors for the
smallest eigenvalue.
iv. Determine buses with large participation factors and consider these buses as
possible locations for STATCOM installation.
v. Randomly add one STATCOM for reactive power compensation at the bus
among suitable buses. Each STATCOM set is considered a harmony vector.
The HM arrays are randomly initialized using (13.34). The number of col-
umns in the HM is equal to the number of buses in the test system. The
optimal parameters of the test system, xLi and xUi, are assumed to have
minimum and maximum values of STATCOM in MVar, respectively. The
HMS value is assumed to be 10.
vi. Improvise a new harmony through position updating and genetic mutation.
In this step, the genetic mutation probability is assumed as pm = 0.2.
vii. Run the power flow program to calculate power loss, voltage deviation, and
the eigenvalues.
viii. Calculate the objective function using (13.30).
ix. Replace the worst harmony in HM with the new harmony.
x. Evaluate whether the stopping criterion (maximum generation ≥5,000) is
satisfied. If not, return to step (vi) and repeat the procedure.
xi. Determine the optimal VAr compensator set (i.e., the best harmony) that
provides maximum power loss reduction, minimum voltage deviation,
maximum voltage satiability enhancement and minimum STATCOM size.
458 R. Sirjani

Start

Initialize the problem and algorithm parameters

Initialize the Harmony Memory in the ranges [ xiL , xiU]

i=1

Determine xibest and xiworst in HM

xR = 2xiworst - xibest

Modified Improvisation Step

Is xR > xiU ? Yes xR= xiU

No

Is xR < xiL ? Yes xR= xiL

No
i= i+1
xiNew= xiworst+r1i (xR -xiworst)

Is r2i ≤ pm ? Yes xiNew = xiL+r3i (xiU-xiL)

No

No
Replace the worst harmony (xiworst) in HM with the new harmony (xinew)
even if xinew is worse than xiworst

Is stopping criterion
satisfied ?

Yes

End

Fig. 13.4 The procedures of the GHS algorithm

13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 459

Start

Read Buses , Branches and Generators Data

Calculate the Jacubian Matrix and Eigenvalues for Base Case

Find the Most Critical Buses with Large Participation Factors Using
Modal Analysis Method

Randomly Add One STATCOM at the Bus Among the Suitable Buses
and Initialize the HM

K=1

Improvise a new harmony using the position updating and genetic mutation

Calculate the Power Flow

Calculate the Objective Function

K=K+1
Replace the Worst Harmony in HM with the New Harmony

No K ≥ K Max

Yes

Determine the Optimum Place and Size of STATCOM

End

Fig. 13.5 Procedures used in solving the optimal STATCOM placement and sizing problem

Figure 13.5 shows a schematic diagram of the procedures used in solving the
optimal STATCOM placement and sizing problem using modal analysis and the
GHS algorithm.
460 R. Sirjani

13.3.6 Case Studies and Results

In determining the optimal location and size of STATCOM in a transmission

network, modal analysis is first applied to determine suitable placement of
STATCOM and then GHS algorithm is applied to determining optimal placement
and size of STATCOM. For the optimization problem formulation, a multi-criterion
objective function has been considered to enhance voltage stability, improve
voltage profile and minimize power loss and total cost. The results obtained using
the proposed GHS techniques in the IEEE 57-bus and 118-bus test systems are
compared with other optimization techniques for validation purpose. The 57 bus
system shown in Fig. 13.6 consists of seven generators with bus 1 as the slack bus,
50 load buses and 80 lines. The system data can be found in Appendix 1. At base
case condition, the system load is 12.508 p.u. and the system power loss is
28.41 MW [42].
The 118-bus system consists of 54 generators (in which one is the slack node),
91 load buses and 186 lines. The system power loss is 132.86 MW and the system
data can be found in Appendix 2 [42].
The eigenvalues of the reduced Jacobian matrix are first generated to obtain the
relative proximity of the system to voltage instability. The bus participation factors
are then generated for the critical mode to identify the critical buses in the system.

Fig. 13.6 Network

configuration of the IEEE
57-bus test system
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 461

The smallest eigenvalue for this system at base case is found to be 0.2344. The bus
participation factor values for the smallest eigenvalue of the reduced Jacobian
matrix are calculated for all load buses and sorted as shown in Table 13.1.
Considering the results of modal analysis shown in Table 13.1, the ten buses
with high participation factor values are considered suitable for STATCOM
installation. The identified ten buses are buses 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and
40. Table 13.2 shows the place and size of STATCOM using the five optimization
techniques. The results obtained from the IHS and GHS algorithms are compared
with results obtained using the GA, PSO and conventional HS algorithm.
Table 13.2 also shows the total power loss, voltage deviation and the smallest
eigenvalue after the installation of the STATCOM. This study is performed with the
restriction that the injected Q does not exceed 50 MVar.
Table 13.2 shows that STATCOM placement using the GHS algorithm not only
produces greater voltage stability enhancement and greater reductions in power loss
and voltage deviation than GA, PSO and conventional HS algorithm, but it also
gives the lowest fitness function value compared to other optimization techniques. It
is also observed that the result of STATCOM placement using the IHS algorithm in
terms of power loss reduction, voltage deviation minimization and voltage stability
enhancement is comparable to the GHS algorithm. However, the STATCOM size
found by the GHS algorithm is lower than that found by the IHS algorithm.
The smallest eigenvalue of the IEEE 118-bus test system at the base case which
is without STATCOM installation is calculated as 3.9425. The bus participation

Table 13.1 The participation factor values of all load buses in the IEEE 57-bus test system
Bus Participation Bus Participation Bus Participation
no. factor no. factor no. factor
31 0.1833 21 0.0067 52 0.0005
33 0.1744 22 0.0067 14 0.0004
32 0.1704 38 0.0057 53 0.0004
30 0.133 20 0.0043 11 0.0002
25 0.1004 44 0.0041 13 0.0002
34 0.0306 27 0.0038 15 0.0002
35 0.0229 41 0.0038 18 0.0002
40 0.0177 48 0.0037 51 0.0002
36 0.0176 47 0.0031 7 0.0001
24 0.0165 19 0.0024 10 0.0001
39 0.0142 49 0.0024 54 0.0001
37 0.014 28 0.0015 4 0
26 0.0138 46 0.0015 5 0
57 0.0114 50 0.0014 16 0
56 0.0092 45 0.0013 17 0
23 0.0072 43 0.0008 55 0
42 0.0070 29 0.0006
462 R. Sirjani

Table 13.2 A comparison of different optimization techniques for optimal placement and sizing
of STATCOM in the IEEE 57-bus test system
Objective function Base case GA PSO HS IHS GHS
Optimum location (Bus no.) – 33 32 31 31 31
Size of STATCOM (MVar) – 17.44 15.35 12.87 12.41 12.37
Total power losses (MW) 28.41 28.19 28.02 27.88 27.76 27.74
Total voltage deviation 0.265 0.209 0.215 0.181 0.178 0.177
Smallest eigenvalue 0.234 0.302 0.261 0.291 0.314 0.322
Fitness function value 1.000 0.802 0.839 0.765 0.743 0.736

factor values for the smallest eigenvalue of the reduced Jacobian matrix are cal-
culated for all load buses. Among all load buses the bus participation factor values
of six buses are sorted and shown in Table 13.3. The bus participation factor values
of other load buses are found to be 0. It means that only six buses have participation
to the critical mode. From the table, the buses with participation factors correspond
to the critical system buses which are at buses 20, 21, 22, 23, 37 and 38. These
buses are considered as suitable locations for STATCOM installation.
The proposed IHS and GHS algorithms were implemented to determine the
optimal location and size of only one STATCOM in the IEEE 118-bus test system.
The coefficient values for the objective functions are assumed to be the same as
those in the IEEE 57-bus test system. This study is performed with the restriction
that the injected Q does not exceed 120 MVar. As shown in Table 13.3, the most
critical buses in the system are buses 20, 21, 22, 23, 37 and 38 and these buses are
considered as candidate location for STATCOM installation.
Table 13.4 shows a comparison of the optimal STATCOM placement results of
the IHS and GHS algorithms with the other optimization techniques in terms of
total power loss, voltage deviation, smallest eigenvalue and size of STATCOM.
The results in the table show that the GHS algorithm gives the lowest fitness
function value and the greatest reduction in terms of power loss and voltage
deviation as compared to GA, PSO, conventional HS and IHS algorithms.
The convergence characteristics of the different optimization techniques for the
optimal placement and sizing of STATCOM in the IEEE 118-bus test system are
shown in Fig. 13.7. From the figure, the GHS algorithm converges faster compared
with the other optimization techniques.

Table 13.3 The participation

Bus no. Participation factor
factor values of critical buses
in the 118 bus test system 21 0.4268
22 0.3390
20 0.2274
23 0.0068
37 0.0039
38 0.0014
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 463

Table 13.4 A comparison of different optimization techniques in optimal placement and sizing of
STATCOM in the IEEE 118-bus test system
Objective function Base case GA PSO HS IHS GHS
Optimum location – 20 22 21 21 21
(Bus no.)
Size of STATCOM – 69.11 71.39 64.11 64.17 64.23
(MVar)
Total power losses (MW) 132.86 132.57 132.56 131.52 131.43 131.23
Total voltage deviation 0.294 0.291 0.290 0.289 0.287 0.285
Smallest eigenvalue 3.9425 5.108 5.166 5.282 5.284 5.292
Fitness function value 1.000 0.875 0.865 0.857 0.853 0.845

Fig. 13.7 Convergence characteristics of different optimization techniques in the IEEE 118-bus
test system

Table 13.5 Accuracy of different optimization techniques for the optimal STATCOM placement
and sizing in the IEEE 118-bus test system
Fitness function value GA PSO HS IHS GHS
Minimum 0.8583 0.8605 0.8567 0.8529 0.8451
Maximum 0.9163 0.8661 0.8581 0.8532 0.8451
Mean 0.8753 0.8651 0.8572 0.8531 0.8451
Standard deviation 5.80e−04 5.61e−05 1.42e−05 3.78e−06 3.47e−08

The minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the fitness function
values from 50 executions of the GA, PSO, HS, IHS and GHS algorithm are shown
in Table 13.5. From the table, it is noted that the GHS algorithm gives the lowest
fitness function values and lowest standard deviation values compared to other
optimization techniques. This proves that the proposed GHS algorithm for solving
the optimal placement and sizing of STATCOM in the IEEE 118-bus test system is
more accurate than GA, PSO, conventional HS and IHS algorithms.
464 R. Sirjani

Appendix 1

Tables 13.6–13.8

Table 13.6 Bus data of IEEE 57-bus test system

Bus Type Pd (MW) Qd(MVar) Bus Type Pd (MW) Qd(MVar)
1 S 55 17 30 L 3.6 1.8
2 G 3 88 31 L 5.8 2.9
3 G 41 21 32 L 1.6 0.8
4 L 0 0 33 L 3.8 1.9
5 L 13 4 34 L 0 0
6 G 75 2 35 L 6 3
7 L 0 0 36 L 0 0
8 G 150 22 37 L 0 0
9 G 121 26 38 L 14 7
10 L 5 2 39 L 0 0
11 L 0 0 40 L 0 0
12 G 377 24 41 L 6.3 3
13 L 18 2.3 42 L 7.1 4.4
14 L 10.5 5.3 43 L 2 1
15 L 22 5 44 L 12 1.8
16 L 43 3 45 L 0 0
17 L 42 8 46 L 0 0
18 L 27.2 9.8 47 L 29.7 11.6
19 L 3.3 0.6 48 L 0 0
20 L 2.3 1 49 L 18 8.5
21 L 0 0 50 L 21 10.5
22 L 0 0 51 L 18 5.3
23 L 6.3 2.1 52 L 4.9 2.2
24 L 0 0 53 L 20 10
25 L 6.3 3.2 54 L 4.1 1.4
26 L 0 0 55 L 6.8 3.4
27 L 9.3 0.5 56 L 7.6 2.2
28 L 4.6 2.3 57 L 6.7 2
29 L 17 2.6

Table 13.7 Generator data of IEEE 57-bus test system

Bus Pg(MW) Qg(MVar) Qmax(MVar) Qmin(MVar) Vg (pu)
1 128.9 −16.1 200 −140 1.04
2 0 −0.8 50 −17 1.01
3 40 −1 60 −10 0.985
6 0 0.8 25 −8 0.98
8 450 62.1 200 −140 1.005
9 0 2.2 9 −3 0.98
12 310 128.5 155 −150 1.015
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 465

Table 13.8 Branch data of IEEE 57-bus test system

Bus Bus R X B Bus Bus R X B
(From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω) (From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
1 2 0.0083 0.028 0.129 7 29 0 0.0648 0
2 3 0.0298 0.085 0.0818 25 30 0.135 0.202 0
3 4 0.0112 0.0366 0.038 30 31 0.326 0.497 0
4 5 0.0625 0.132 0.0258 31 32 0.507 0.755 0
4 6 0.043 0.148 0.0348 32 33 0.0392 0.036 0
6 7 0.02 0.102 0.0276 34 32 0 0.953 0
6 8 0.0339 0.173 0.047 34 35 0.052 0.078 0.0032
8 9 0.0099 0.0505 0.0548 35 36 0.043 0.0537 0.0016
9 10 0.0369 0.1679 0.044 36 37 0.029 0.0366 0
9 11 0.0258 0.0848 0.0218 37 38 0.0651 0.1009 0.002
9 12 0.0648 0.295 0.0772 37 39 0.0239 0.0379 0
9 13 0.0481 0.158 0.0406 36 40 0.03 0.0466 0
13 14 0.0132 0.0434 0.011 22 38 0.0192 0.0295 0
13 15 0.0269 0.0869 0.023 11 41 0 0.749 0
1 15 0.0178 0.091 0.0988 41 42 0.207 0.352 0
1 16 0.0454 0.206 0.0546 41 43 0 0.412 0
1 17 0.0238 0.108 0.0286 38 44 0.0289 0.0585 0.002
3 15 0.0162 0.053 0.0544 15 45 0 0.1042 0
4 18 0 0.555 0 14 46 0 0.0735 0
4 18 0 0.43 0 46 47 0.023 0.068 0.0032
5 6 0.0302 0.0641 0.0124 47 48 0.0182 0.0233 0
7 8 0.0139 0.0712 0.0194 48 49 0.0834 0.129 0.0048
10 12 0.0277 0.1262 0.0328 49 50 0.0801 0.128 0
11 13 0.0223 0.0732 0.0188 50 51 0.1386 0.22 0
12 13 0.0178 0.058 0.0604 10 51 0 0.0712 0
12 16 0.018 0.0813 0.0216 13 49 0 0.191 0
12 17 0.0397 0.179 0.0476 29 52 0.1442 0.187 0
14 15 0.0171 0.0547 0.0148 52 53 0.0762 0.0984 0
18 19 0.461 0.685 0 53 54 0.1878 0.232 0
19 20 0.283 0.434 0 54 55 0.1732 0.2265 0
21 20 0 0.7767 0 11 43 0 0.153 0
21 22 0.0736 0.117 0 44 45 0.0624 0.1242 0.004
22 23 0.0099 0.0152 0 40 56 0 1.195 0
23 24 0.166 0.256 0.0084 56 41 0.553 0.549 0
24 25 0 1.182 0 56 42 0.2125 0.354 0
24 25 0 1.23 0 39 57 0 1.355 0
24 26 0 0.0473 0 57 56 0.174 0.26 0
26 27 0.165 0.254 0 38 49 0.115 0.177 0.003
27 28 0.0618 0.0954 0 38 48 0.0312 0.0482 0
28 29 0.0418 0.0587 0 9 55 0 0.1205 0
466 R. Sirjani

Appendix 2

Tables 13.9–13.11, Fig. 13.8

Fig. 13.8 Network diagram for the IEEE 118-bus test system
 13

Table 13.9 Bus data of IEEE 118-bus test system

Bus Type Pd Qd Bus Type Pd Qd Bus Type Pd (MW) Qd
(MW) (MVar) (MW) (MVar) (MVar)
1 G 51 27 41 L 37 10 81 L 0 0
2 L 20 9 42 G 96 23 82 L 54 27
3 L 39 10 43 L 18 7 83 L 20 10
4 G 39 12 44 L 16 8 84 L 11 7
5 L 0 0 45 L 53 22 85 G 24 15
6 G 52 22 46 G 28 10 86 L 21 10
7 L 19 2 47 L 34 0 87 G 0 0
8 G 28 0 48 L 20 11 88 L 48 10
9 L 0 0 49 G 87 30 89 G 0 0
10 G 0 0 50 L 17 4 90 G 163 42
11 L 70 23 51 L 17 8 91 G 10 0
12 G 47 10 52 L 18 5 92 G 65 10
Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM …

13 L 34 16 53 L 23 11 93 L 12 7
14 L 14 1 54 G 113 32 94 L 30 16
15 G 90 30 55 G 63 22 95 L 42 31
16 L 25 10 56 G 84 18 96 L 38 15
17 L 11 3 57 L 12 3 97 L 15 9
18 G 60 34 58 L 12 3 98 L 34 8
19 G 45 25 59 G 277 113 99 G 42 0
20 L 18 3 60 L 78 3 100 G 37 18
21 L 14 8 61 G 0 0 101 L 22 15
22 L 10 5 62 G 77 14 102 L 5 3
23 L 7 3 63 L 0 0 103 G 23 16
(continued)
467
Table 13.9 (continued)
468

Bus Type Pd Qd Bus Type Pd Qd Bus Type Pd (MW) Qd

(MW) (MVar) (MW) (MVar) (MVar)
24 G 13 0 64 L 0 0 104 G 38 25
25 G 0 0 65 G 0 0 105 G 31 26
26 G 0 0 66 G 39 18 106 L 43 16
27 G 71 13 67 L 28 7 107 G 50 12
28 L 17 7 68 L 0 0 108 L 2 1
29 L 24 4 69 S 0 0 109 L 8 3
30 L 0 0 70 G 66 20 110 G 39 30
31 G 43 27 71 L 0 0 111 G 0 0
32 G 59 23 72 G 12 0 112 G 68 13
33 L 23 9 73 G 6 0 113 G 6 0
34 G 59 26 74 G 68 27 114 L 8 3
35 L 33 9 75 L 47 11 115 L 22 7
36 G 31 17 76 G 68 36 116 G 184 0
37 L 0 0 77 G 61 28 117 L 20 8
38 L 0 0 78 L 71 26 118 L 33 15
39 L 27 11 79 L 39 32
40 G 66 23 80 G 130 26
R. Sirjani
Table 13.10 Generator data of IEEE 118-bus test system
13

Bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg Bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg

(MW) (MVar) (MVar) (MVar) (pu) (MW) (MVar) (MVar) (MVar) (pu)
1 0 0 15 −5 0.955 65 391 0 200 −67 1.005
4 0 0 300 −300 0.998 66 392 0 200 −67 1.05
6 0 0 50 −13 0.99 69 516.4 0 300 −300 1.035
8 0 0 300 −300 1.015 70 0 0 32 −10 0.984
10 450 0 200 −147 1.05 72 0 0 100 −100 0.98
12 85 0 120 −35 0.99 73 0 0 100 −100 0.991
15 0 0 30 −10 0.97 74 0 0 9 −6 0.958
18 0 0 50 −16 0.973 76 0 0 23 −8 0.943
19 0 0 24 −8 0.962 77 0 0 70 −20 1.006
24 0 0 300 −300 0.992 80 477 0 280 −165 1.04
25 220 0 140 −47 1.05 85 0 0 23 −8 0.985
26 314 0 1,000 −1,000 1.015 87 4 0 1,000 −100 1.015
Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM …

27 0 0 300 −300 0.968 89 607 0 300 −210 1.005

31 7 0 300 −300 0.967 90 0 0 300 −300 0.985
32 0 0 42 −14 0.963 91 0 0 100 −100 0.98
34 0 0 24 −8 0.984 92 0 0 9 −3 0.99
36 0 0 24 −8 0.98 99 0 0 100 −100 1.01
40 0 0 300 −300 0.97 100 252 0 155 −50 1.017
42 0 0 300 −300 0.985 103 40 0 40 −15 1.01
46 19 0 100 −100 1.005 104 0 0 23 −8 0.971
49 204 0 210 −85 1.025 105 0 0 23 −8 0.965
(continued)
469
Table 13.10 (continued)
470

Bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg Bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg

(MW) (MVar) (MVar) (MVar) (pu) (MW) (MVar) (MVar) (MVar) (pu)
54 48 0 300 −300 0.955 107 0 0 200 −200 0.952
55 0 0 23 −8 0.952 110 0 0 23 −8 0.973
56 0 0 15 −8 0.954 111 36 0 1,000 −100 0.98
59 155 0 180 −60 0.985 112 0 0 1000 −100 0.975
61 160 0 300 −100 0.995 113 0 0 200 −100 0.993
62 0 0 20 −20 0.998 116 0 0 1,000 −1,000 1.005
R. Sirjani
 13

Table 13.11 Branch data of IEEE 118-bus test system

Bus Bus R X B Bus Bus R X B
(From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω) (From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
1 3 0.0129 0.0424 0.01082 64 61 0 0.0268 0
4 5 0.00176 0.00798 0.0021 38 65 0.00901 0.0986 1.046
3 5 0.0241 0.108 0.0284 64 65 0.00269 0.0302 0.38
5 6 0.0119 0.054 0.01426 49 66 0.018 0.0919 0.0248
6 7 0.00459 0.0208 0.0055 49 66 0.018 0.0919 0.0248
8 9 0.00244 0.0305 1.162 62 66 0.0482 0.218 0.0578
8 5 0 0.0267 0 62 67 0.0258 0.117 0.031
9 10 0.00258 0.0322 1.23 65 66 0 0.037 0
4 11 0.0209 0.0688 0.01748 66 67 0.0224 0.1015 0.02682
5 11 0.0203 0.0682 0.01738 65 68 0.00138 0.016 0.638
11 12 0.00595 0.0196 0.00502 47 69 0.0844 0.2778 0.07092
2 12 0.0187 0.0616 0.01572 49 69 0.0985 0.324 0.0828
Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM …

3 12 0.0484 0.16 0.0406 68 69 0 0.037 0

7 12 0.00862 0.034 0.00874 69 70 0.03 0.127 0.122
11 13 0.02225 0.0731 0.01876 24 70 0.00221 0.4115 0.10198
12 14 0.0215 0.0707 0.01816 70 71 0.00882 0.0355 0.00878
13 15 0.0744 0.2444 0.06268 24 72 0.0488 0.196 0.0488
14 15 0.0595 0.195 0.0502 71 72 0.0446 0.18 0.04444
12 16 0.0212 0.0834 0.0214 71 73 0.00866 0.0454 0.01178
15 17 0.0132 0.0437 0.0444 70 74 0.0401 0.1323 0.03368
16 17 0.0454 0.1801 0.0466 70 75 0.0428 0.141 0.036
17 18 0.0123 0.0505 0.01298 69 75 0.0405 0.122 0.124
18 19 0.01119 0.0493 0.01142 74 75 0.0123 0.0406 0.01034
(continued)
471
Table 13.11 (continued)
472

Bus Bus R X B Bus Bus R X B

(From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω) (From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
19 20 0.0252 0.117 0.0298 76 77 0.0444 0.148 0.0368
15 19 0.012 0.0394 0.0101 69 77 0.0309 0.101 0.1038
20 21 0.0183 0.0849 0.0216 75 77 0.0601 0.1999 0.04978
21 22 0.0209 0.097 0.0246 77 78 0.00376 0.0124 0.01264
22 23 0.0342 0.159 0.0404 78 79 0.00546 0.0244 0.00648
23 24 0.0135 0.0492 0.0498 77 80 0.017 0.0485 0.0472
23 25 0.0156 0.08 0.0864 77 80 0.0294 0.105 0.0228
26 25 0 0.0382 0 79 80 0.0156 0.0704 0.0187
25 27 0.0318 0.163 0.1764 68 81 0.00175 0.0202 0.808
27 28 0.01913 0.0855 0.0216 81 80 0 0.037 0
28 29 0.0237 0.0943 0.0238 77 82 0.0298 0.0853 0.08174
30 17 0 0.0388 0 82 83 0.0112 0.03665 0.03796
8 30 0.00431 0.0504 0.514 83 84 0.0625 0.132 0.0258
26 30 0.00799 0.086 0.908 83 85 0.043 0.148 0.0348
17 31 0.0474 0.1563 0.0399 84 85 0.0302 0.0641 0.01234
29 31 0.0108 0.0331 0.0083 85 86 0.035 0.123 0.0276
23 32 0.0317 0.1153 0.1173 86 87 0.02828 0.2074 0.0445
31 32 0.0298 0.0985 0.0251 85 88 0.02 0.102 0.0276
27 32 0.0229 0.0755 0.01926 85 89 0.0239 0.173 0.047
15 33 0.038 0.1244 0.03194 88 89 0.0139 0.0712 0.01934
19 34 0.0752 0.247 0.0632 89 90 0.0518 0.188 0.0528
35 36 0.00224 0.0102 0.00268 89 90 0.0238 0.0997 0.106
35 37 0.011 0.0497 0.01318 90 91 0.0254 0.0836 0.0214
(continued)
R. Sirjani
Table 13.11 (continued)
13

Bus Bus R X B Bus Bus R X B

(From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω) (From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
33 37 0.0415 0.142 0.0366 89 92 0.0099 0.0505 0.0548
34 36 0.00871 0.0268 0.00568 89 92 0.0393 0.1581 0.0414
34 37 0.00256 0.0094 0.00984 91 92 0.0387 0.1272 0.03268
38 37 0 0.0375 0 92 93 0.0258 0.0848 0.0218
37 39 0.0321 0.106 0.027 92 94 0.0481 0.158 0.0406
37 40 0.0593 0.168 0.042 93 94 0.0223 0.0732 0.01876
30 38 0.00464 0.054 0.422 94 95 0.0132 0.0434 0.0111
39 40 0.0184 0.0605 0.01552 80 96 0.0356 0.182 0.0494
40 41 0.0145 0.0487 0.01222 82 96 0.0162 0.053 0.0544
40 42 0.0555 0.183 0.0466 94 96 0.0269 0.0869 0.023
41 42 0.041 0.135 0.0344 80 97 0.0183 0.0934 0.0254
43 44 0.0608 0.2454 0.06068 80 98 0.0238 0.108 0.0286
Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM …

34 43 0.0413 0.1681 0.04226 80 99 0.0454 0.206 0.0546

44 45 0.0224 0.0901 0.0224 92 100 0.0648 0.295 0.0472
45 46 0.04 0.1356 0.0332 94 100 0.0178 0.058 0.0604
46 47 0.038 0.127 0.0316 95 96 0.0171 0.0547 0.01474
46 48 0.0601 0.189 0.0472 96 97 0.0173 0.0885 0.024
47 49 0.0191 0.0625 0.01604 98 100 0.0397 0.179 0.0476
42 49 0.0715 0.323 0.086 99 100 0.018 0.0813 0.0216
42 49 0.0715 0.323 0.086 100 101 0.0277 0.1262 0.0328
45 49 0.0684 0.186 0.0444 92 102 0.0123 0.0559 0.01464
48 49 0.0179 0.0505 0.01258 101 102 0.0246 0.112 0.0294
49 50 0.0267 0.0752 0.01874 100 103 0.016 0.0525 0.0536
(continued)
473
Table 13.11 (continued)
474

Bus Bus R X B Bus Bus R X B

(From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω) (From) (To) (Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
49 51 0.0486 0.137 0.0342 100 104 0.0451 0.204 0.0541
51 52 0.0203 0.0588 0.01396 103 104 0.0466 0.1584 0.0407
52 53 0.0405 0.1635 0.04058 103 105 0.0535 0.1625 0.0408
53 54 0.0263 0.122 0.031 100 106 0.0605 0.229 0.062
49 54 0.073 0.289 0.0738 104 105 0.00994 0.0378 0.00986
49 54 0.0869 0.291 0.073 105 106 0.014 0.0547 0.01434
54 55 0.0169 0.0707 0.0202 105 107 0.053 0.183 0.0472
54 56 0.00275 0.00955 0.00732 105 108 0.0261 0.0703 0.01844
55 56 0.00488 0.0151 0.00374 106 107 0.053 0.183 0.0472
56 57 0.0343 0.0966 0.0242 108 109 0.0105 0.0288 0.0076
50 57 0.0474 0.134 0.0332 103 110 0.03906 0.1813 0.0461
56 58 0.0343 0.0966 0.0242 109 110 0.0278 0.0762 0.0202
51 58 0.0255 0.0719 0.01788 110 111 0.022 0.0755 0.02
54 59 0.0503 0.2293 0.0598 110 112 0.0247 0.064 0.062
56 59 0.0825 0.251 0.0569 17 113 0.00913 0.0301 0.00768
56 59 0.0803 0.239 0.0536 32 113 0.0615 0.203 0.0518
55 59 0.04739 0.2158 0.05646 32 114 0.0135 0.0612 0.01628
59 60 0.0317 0.145 0.0376 27 115 0.0164 0.0741 0.01972
59 61 0.0328 0.15 0.0388 114 115 0.0023 0.0104 0.00276
60 61 0.00264 0.0135 0.01456 68 116 0.00034 0.00405 0.164
60 62 0.0123 0.0561 0.01468 12 117 0.0329 0.14 0.0358
61 62 0.00824 0.0376 0.0098 75 118 0.0145 0.0481 0.01198
63 59 0 0.0386 0 76 118 0.0164 0.0544 0.01356
63 64 0.00172 0.02 0.216
R. Sirjani
13 Optimal Placement and Sizing of STATCOM … 475

References

1. Saranjeet K (2009) Evolutionary algorithm assisted optimal placement of FACTS controllers

in power system. Master Thesis Thapar University, India, p11
2. Gyugyi ML, Shauder CD, SenKK (1997) Static synchronous series compensator a solid state
approach to the series compensation of transmission line. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 12
(3):406–417
3. Hassan MO, Cheng SJ, Zakaria ZA (2009) Steady-state modelling of static synchronous
compensator and thyristor controlled series compensator for power flow analysis. Inf Technol
J 8(3):347–353
4. Radam GG, Raje RS (2007) Power flow model/calculation for power systems with multiple
FACTS controllers. Electric Power Syst Res 77(12):1521–1531
5. Azadani EN, Hosseinian SH, Janati M, Hasanpor P (2008) Optimal Placement of Multiple
STATCOM. In: 12th International Middle-East power system conference, pp 523–528
6. Shaygan M, Seifossadat SGH, Razaz M (2011) Study the effects of STATCOM on the static
voltage stability improvement and reduction of active and reactive losses. Int Rev Electr Eng 6
(4):1862–1869
7. Natesan R, Radman G (2004) Effects of STATCOM, SSSC and UPFC on voltage stability. In:
Proceedings of the 36th Southeastern symposium on system theory, pp 546–550
8. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan G (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony
search. Simulation 76(2):136–701
9. Khajehzadeh M, Taha MR, El-Shafie A, Eslami M (2011) A survey on meta-heuristic global
optimization algorithms. Res J Appl Sci, Eng Technol 3(6):569–578
10. Rechenberg I (1965) Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Royal Aircraft
Establishment, brary Translation, p 1122
11. Holland J (1975) An introduction with application to biology, control and artificial intelligence
adaptation in natural and artificial system. MIT Press
12. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan
Press, AnnArbor
13. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science
220(4598):671–680
14. Farmer JD, Packard NH, Perelson AS (1986) The immune system, adaptation, and machine
learning. Physica D 22(1–3):187–204
15. Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms. Ph.D. thesis
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
16. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. IEEE international conference on
neural networks Perth, Australia, pp 1942–1948
17. Nakrani S, Tovey C (2004) On honey bees and dynamic server allocation in internet hosting
centers. Adapt Behav 12(3–4):223
18. Mendes JC, Saavedra OR, Pessanha JO (2002) Power system restoration restoration with
priority loads using an evolutionary strategy. In: Proceedings of 34th North American power
symposium, Arizona, pp 254–260
19. Santiago M, Maldonado R (2006) Optimal placement of FACTS controllers in power systems
via evolutionary strategies. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on transmission
and distribution evolutionary computation, pp 1–6
20. Dominguez-Navarro JA, Bernal-Agustin JL, Diaz A, Requena D, Vargas EP (2007) Optimal
parameters of FACTS devices in electric power systems applying evolutionary strategies.
Electri Power Energy Syst 29:83–90
21. Zhang Y, Milanovic JV (2007) Voltage sag cost reduction with optimally placed FACTS
devices. In: 9th international conference on Electrical power, quality and utilisation, pp 1–6
22. Baghaee HR, Jannati M, Vahidi B, Hosseinian SH, Rastegar H (2008) Improvement of voltage
stability and reduce power system losses by optimal GA-based allocation of multi-type
 476 R. Sirjani

FACTS devices. In: 11th international conference on optimization of Electrical and Electronic
equipment, pp 209–214
23. Sundareswaran K, Bharathram P, Siddharth M, Vaishnavi G, Shrivastava NA, Sarma H (2009)
Voltage profile enhancement through optimal placement of FACTS devices using queen-bee-
assisted GA. In: Third international conference on power systems, pp 1–5
24. Bina TM, Siahbidi JR, Kanzi K (2005) Application of averaging technique to the power
system optimum placement and sizing of static compensators. In: The 7th international power
engineering conference, pp 1–6
25. Samimi A, Golkar MA (2011) A novel method for optimal placement of STATCOM in
distribution networks using sensitivity analysis by DIgSILENT software. Asia-Pacific power
and energy Engineering conference, pp 1–5
26. Del-Valle Y, Hernandez JC, Venayagamoorthy GK, Harley RG (2006) Optimal STATCOM
sizing and placement using particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
transmission and distribution conference and exposition Latin America, pp 1–6
27. Hernandez JC, Del-Valle Y, Venayagamoorthy GK, Harley RG (2006) Optimal allocation of a
STATCOM in a 45 bus section of the Brazilian power system using particle swarm
optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, pp 69–75
28. Panda S, Padhy NP (2008) Optimal location and controller design of STATCOM for power
system stability improvement using PSO. J Franklin Inst 345:166–181
29. Del-Valle Y, Venayagamoorthy GK, Harley RG (2009) Comparison of enhanced-PSO and
classical optimization methods: a case study for STATCOM placement. In: Proceedings of the
IEEE 15th international conference on intelligent system applications to power systems, pp 1–7
30. Varshney S, Srivastava L, Pandit M (2011) Comparison of PSO models for optimal placement
and sizing of STATCOM. In: 2nd international conference on sustainable energy and
intelligent system, pp 346–351
31. Lee K, Geem Z (2005) A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering
optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194
(2005):3902–3933
32. Sirjani R, Mohamed A, Shareef H (2012) Optimal placement and sizing of static synchronous
compensators in power systems using improved harmony search algorithm. Int Rev Electr Eng
7(2):4183
33. Majumdar S, Chakraborty AK, Chattopadhyay PK (2009) Active power loss minimization
with FACTS devices using SA/PSO techniques. In: 3rd international conference on power
systems, pp 1–5
34. Acha E, Fuerte-Esquivel CR, Ambriz-Perez H, Angeles-Camacho C (2004) FACTS modelling
and simulation in power network. Wiley, New York
35. Zhang XP, Rehtanz C, Pal B (2006) Flexible AC transmission systems modelling and control.
Springer, Berlin
36. Kundur P (1994) Power system stability and control. McGraw-Hill Inc
37. Sharma C, Ganness MG (2007) Determination of power system voltage stability using modal
analysis. IEEE Int Conf Power Eng, Energy Electri Drives, POWERENG 2007:381–387
38. Pisica I, Bulac C, Toma L, Eremia M (2009) Optimal SVC placement in electric power
systems using a genetic algorithms based method. In: IEEE Bucharest power tech conference,
pp 1–6
39. Kazemi A, Parizad A, Baghaee H (2009) On the use of harmony search algorithm in optimal
placement of FACTS devices to improve power system security. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
EUROCON, pp 570–576
40. Zou D, Gao L, Li S, Wu J, Wang X (2010) A novel global harmony search algorithm for task
assignment problem. J Syst Softw 83(10):1678–1688
41. Zou D, Gao L, Wu J, Li S, Li Y (2010) A novel global harmony search algorithm for
reliability problems. Comput Ind Eng 58(2):307–316
42. Power Systems Test Case Archive, Uni. of Washington, http://www.ee.washington.edu/
research/pstca/

View publication stats