International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)

Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

Optimal Placement and Sizing of SVC for Voltage

Security Enhancement

Shraddha Udgir Sarika Varshney Laxmi Srivastava

Department of Electrical Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering
Madhav Institute of Technology & Madhav Institute of Technology & Madhav Institute of Technology &
Science Science Science

ABSTRACT because the location is far from the generator point. Further,
the flow of real power in transmission lines reduces the supply
In present day restructured power systems, increased of reactive power demand of the system and creates voltage
transactions often lead to the situations where the system no problems. Hence, the reactive power compensators are used to
longer remains in secure operating condition. To overcome maintain the voltage profile and thereby to improve the
such undesirable situation the Flexible AC transmission performances of the power system [4].
system (FACTS) controllers can be placed in a power system,
which are able to provide fast and flexible control of voltage The Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems
magnitude, active and reactive powers and to improve voltage (FACTS) devices are popularly used for improving the
security and stability. As investment cost of FACTS overall performance of a power system. FACTS devices are
controllers is very high, these devices must be placed the solid state converters having capability of improving
optimally in a power system. Static Var Compensators (SVC) power transmission capacity, voltage profile, enhancing
is a shunt FACTS device that can be used for improvement of power system stability and security [5]. There are many
voltage profile in a power system. For optimal placement of reactive compensation devices used for reactive power
SVC, this paper proposes a method that considers single line compensation, each of which is having their own advantages
outage contingencies. On the basis of Voltage Performance and disadvantages. So it is necessary to select the most
Index two most critical contingencies are considered for favorable device for compensation and placing it optimally
searching the optimal location of SVC. The impact of SVC at [1].
selected optimal locations is evaluated and compared for
varying load condition of the power system. The criteria for A few research works has been done on FACTS controllers on
selection of optimal location consider improvement of the improving the performance of power system by locating it
voltage profile and reduction in the system losses in a power optimally. F.D. Gailana in [6] proposes the comparison of
system. The effectiveness of the proposed method is various FACTS devices on behavior of power system. In [7]
demonstrated on a standard IEEE 30-bus system. Gyugyi proposes the investment cost of FACTS controllers
General Terms and their impact on power generation cost. The ref. [8]
Contingency analysis, SVC, Line Losses proposes a genetic algorithm based approach to determine the
suitable types of FCATS devices and their optimal locations.
In [9, 10], new SVC (a shunt compensation device) models
Keywords and their implementation in Newton-Raphson load flow and
Load flow analysis, FACTS devices, SVC, Voltage optimal power flow algorithms has been is developed. The
Performance Index, and Voltage Profile. ref. [10] focuses on the placement of SVC to maintain the
voltage profile of a power system under different
contingencies. SVC is placed for improving the voltage
profile while reducing the real power losses in the system.
1. INTRODUCTION Optimal location of SVC for voltage security enhancement
Modern electric power system is facing many challenges due using MOPSO is discussed in [11].
to the increase complexity in their operation and structure. In
recent years, the stable operation of power systems has been a
great concern for power system operators because of the
2. FACTS DEVICES
The FACTS devices have become very popular for improving
limited transmission capacity of restructured power system
the overall performance of a power system. FACTS devices
[1]. The main reason for occurring voltage collapse is when
may series, shunt or combination of series-series or series-
the power system is heavily loaded, faulted and/or having
shunt deices. These devices provide direct and flexible control
shortage of reactive power [2]. The voltage collapse problem
while transferring the power in steady state condition and
is closely related to the planning of reactive power
reduces the power flows while the high speed commands
particularly when the contingencies are considered [3]. Thus,
gives the qualities to improve the dynamic stability. The
the reactive power planning is one of the most crucial
optimal location of FCATS devices thus allow to increase the
problems of a power system. When contingencies like line
system loadability and the security margin [13].
outage or generator outages occur, sometimes the power
system becomes insecure from the viewpoint of bus voltage/
In power system FACTS devices are used to achieve several
loading of transmission lines. During the outage conditions of
goals. In a meshed network when steady state condition
some critical lines, generators are capable of supplying
arises, the FACTS device supplies or absorbs reactive power.
limited reactive power even sometimes the supplied reactive
Thus, it increases or reduces voltage and controls the phase
power cannot be used to fulfill the requirement of the network
angle as well as the series impedance to permit the

44
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

transmission line to operate near to their thermal limits and 3.2 Modeling of SVC
reduces the line flows. FACTS devices can be used for short Earlier the SVC model used for power flow analysis
circuits conditions as they limits the short circuit currents. considered the SVC as a generator behind an inductive
reactance while operating within limits. This reactance
As shown in Fig. 1, the active power transmitted by a represents the SVC voltage regulation characteristic, i.e.,
transmission line between bus i and bus j can be calculated as SVC's slope Xst [2]. A simpler representation assumes that the
SVC slope is zero for voltage regulation. This assumption
𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗
𝑃𝑖𝑗 = sin 𝛿𝑖𝑗 may be acceptable as long as the Static Var Compensator is
𝑋𝑖𝑗 operating within limits, but if the SVC operates close to its
reactive limits it may lead to gross errors [5]. The voltage-
Where 𝑉𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗 are the voltages at bus i and j ; 𝑋𝑖𝑗 is the current characteristic of SVC is shown in Fig.2. The upper
reactance of the line ; 𝛿𝑖𝑗 is the angle between 𝑉𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗 . characteristic of the system are observed when low loading
conditions are considered. If the slope is taken to be zero, then
the generator will violate its minimum reactive limit,
point 𝐵𝑋 𝑆𝐿=0 . However, the generator will operate well within
bus i bus j limits if the SVC slope is taken into consideration which is
shown by point B [9, 12].
Vi Xij Vj

The SVC characteristic is represented by connecting the

generator to an auxiliary bus coupled to the high-voltage bus
Pij by an inductive reactance which is equal to the per unit slope
on the SVC slope. The auxiliary bus is represented as a PV-
Figure 1. Power (P ij) flow between buses i and j type bus whereas the high-voltage bus is taken as a PQ-type.
When it operates outside the limits, then the generator
Two models of SVC are usually implemented for load flow representation becomes invalid. In such cases, it is necessary
analysis of a power system [12]. to change the SVC representation to a fixed reactive
susceptance. This combined generator-susceptance model
2.1 SVC Susceptance model gives accurate results. However, both representations require
In this model a changing susceptance BSVC represents the a different number of buses. The generator uses two or three
fundamental frequency equivalent susceptance of all shunt buses whereas the fixed susceptance uses only one bus.
modules making up the SVC. This model is an improved
version of SVC models.

2.2 SVC Firing angle model

The changing firing angle 𝛼 is a function of equivalent
susceptance, Beq. The model is made up of the parallel
combination of thyristor controlled reactor (TCR) equivalent
admittance and a fixed capacitive susceptance. This is a new
and more advanced SVC representation. This model provides
information on the SVC firing angle required to achieve a
given level of compensation.

3. STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR

3.1 SVC Equivalent Susceptance Model
The growing power electronics technology and the control
methods have made possible the development of fast SVC’s
in the early 1970’s. The SVC consists of a group of shunt-
connected capacitors and reactors banks with fast control Figure 2 . Voltage- Current Characteristics of SVC
action by means of thyristor switching circuits. For operating,
the SVC can be considered as a variable shunt reactance that
adjusts itself automatically according to the system operative
conditions. According to nature of the equivalent SVC’s
reactance, i.e. capacitive or inductive, the SVC draws either
capacitive or inductive current from the network. As this I Vk
equivalent reactance of the connected SVC is suitably
controlled, it allows the voltage magnitude to regulate at the B
connection point of SVC. The most popular configuration for
continuously controlled SVC is the combination of either fix
capacitor and thyristor controlled reactor or thyristor switched
capacitor and thyristor controlled reactor. For steady-stale
analysis, both the configurations can be modeled along similar
lines [12, 14].
Figure 3. Variable Shunt Susceptance Model

45
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

While implementing this model for load flow analysis, it may production or absorption reactive power capabilities will be a
require the Jacobian reordering and re-dimensioning during function of the nodal voltage at the SVC point of connection
the iterative solution. Also it becomes necessary to verify to get the voltage 1.0 p.u.
whether or not the SVC can return to operate inside the limits.
While operating outside the limits, it is important to model the 4.2 Transmission Losses Minimization
Static Var Compensator as a susceptance and not as a The proposed algorithm also considers the transmission loss
generator set at its violated limit Qvoilated. If it is not set within minimization for selecting optimal location of SVC.
the violated limits it will lead to inaccurate results. The reason Transmission loss minimization is responsible for the
is that the amount of reactive power drawn by the SVC is redistribution of the reactive power throughout the network,
given by the product of the fixed susceptance, Bfixed and the which in turn induces changes in the active power generated
nodal voltage magnitude Vk. A Vk is a function of network by the slack bus. It has been observed that if the network
operating conditions as the amount of reactive power drawn losses were reduced in only 0.15%, a more uniform voltage
by the fixed susceptance model may differ from the reactive profile was observed at all the buses of a power system. The
power drawn by the generator model, i.e. real and reactive power losses can be calculated using (6) and
(7).
𝑄𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ≠ −𝐵𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑘2 (1)
𝑛𝑙
𝑃𝐿 = 𝑘=1 𝑔𝑘 [ 𝑉𝑖2 + 𝑉𝑗2 - 2 𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 cos( 𝛿𝑖 - 𝛿𝑗 )] (6)

𝑛𝑙
3.3 SVC Load Flow Models
The circuit shown in Fig. 3 is used to derive the SVC's 𝑄𝐿 = 𝑔𝑘 [𝑉𝑖2 + 𝑉𝑗2 − 2𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑗 sin(𝛿𝑗 − 𝛿𝑗 )] (7)
nonlinear power equations and the linearised equations 𝑘=1

required by Newton's load flow method. In general, the

Where nl is the number of transmission lines; gk is the
transfer admittance equation for the variable shunt
conductance of the kth line; Vi∠𝛿𝑖 and Vj∠𝛿𝑗 are the voltages
compensator is,
at the end buses i and j of the kth line.
𝐼𝑠𝑣𝑐 = j 𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 𝑉𝐾 (2)
4.3 Voltage Deviations
And the reactive power equation is,
In a power system, usually it is desirable to maintain the
voltage deviations within ±5%. In this paper, the optimal
𝑄𝑘 = - 𝑉𝑘2 𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 (3)
location and size of SVC is determined by observing
In SVC susceptance model the total susceptance BSVC is taken minimum value of voltage deviation (VD). Voltage deviation
to be the state variable, therefore the linearised equation of the is calculated as follows:
SVC is given by
𝑁𝐵
∆𝑃𝑘 0 0 ∆𝜃𝑘 VD = 𝑖=1(1 − 𝑉𝑖 ) if 𝑉𝑖 ˂ 1 (8)
= (4)
∆𝑄𝑘 0 𝑄𝑘 ∆𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 / 𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶
At the end of iteration i the variable shunt susceptance BSVC is 5. ALGORITHM FOR FINDING THE
updated according to (5). OPTIMAL LOCATION OF SVC
The following steps are implemented.
(𝑖) (𝑖−1) (𝑖−1)
𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 = 𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 + (∆𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 /𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 )(i)𝐵𝑆𝑉𝐶 (5)
1. In the given power system, simulate various line outages
and for each line outage run Newton-Raphson (NR) load
flow method and calculate Voltage Performance Index
This changing susceptance value represents the total SVC (VPI) for each.
susceptance which is necessary to maintain the nodal voltage 2. On the basis of VPI, rank the various contingencies in the
magnitude at the specified value (1.0 p.u. in this paper). order of their severity.
3. Consider the most severe contingency first and select the
4. PROBLEM FORMULATION busses having low voltage magnitude.
4.1 Nodal Voltage Magnitude Controlled 4. Place SVC on these buses one by one starting from the
by SVC bus with lowest voltage magnitude and analyze voltage
The variable shunt susceptance model is implemented in a profile, voltage deviations, real and reactive power losses.
Newton-Raphson load flow algorithm requires the 5. On this basis, select the optimal location for the placement
incorporation of a nonstandard type of bus, namely PVB. This of SVC.
is a controlled bus where the nodal voltage magnitude and 6. With SVC placed at this location, simulate various
active and reactive powers are specified while the SVC’s total contingencies and examine the voltage profiles for each
susceptance BSVC is handled as state variable. If BSVC is within line outage.
limits the specified voltage magnitude is attained and the 7. With SVC at the selected location perceive its impact on
controlled bus remains PVB-type. However, if BSVC goes out power system by changing load in wide range.
of limits, the bus becomes PQ-type. In this situation, the SVC 8. Repeat steps 3 to 7 for second most severe contingency.
will act as an unregulated voltage compensator whose

46
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

9. Find out the optimal location for the placement by SVC at bus 5 because it is a PV bus so the remaining two
comparing the voltage profile as obtained in steps 6 -8. buses 7 and 30 are considered for the optimal location of
SVC. The voltage profiles for the line outage 5 with SVC
6. CASE STUDIES placed at bus 30 and bus 7 are shown in Table 3. The real and
The proposed algorithm for optimal placement and sizing of reactive power losses and SVC rating are shown in Table 4. In
SVC has been implemented on IEEE 30 bus system [15]. This this line outage condition also the optimal location for the
system comprises of one slack bus, 5 PV buses, 24 PQ buses placement of SVC is found to be bus 30.
and 41lines. For optimal placement of SVC, single line outage
contingencies are simulated in the sample power system. The 6.1.3 Impact of SVC at bus7 and 30 during load
severity of a contingency is evaluated by using the VPI [16] variation and line outage 36
as given by (9). It has been observed that when the load at various buses of the
IEEE 30 bus system is varied randomly in wide range (.± 30%
𝑁𝐵
VPI = 𝑖=1(∆|𝑉𝑖| /∆ | 𝑉𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 |)2m (9) ), the voltage profile of all the buses was good with SVC
connected at bus 30. The lowest voltage which appears on bus
Where ∆ 𝑉𝑖 is the difference between the voltage magnitude 26 is 0.9948p.u. The voltage deviation with SVC at bus 30 is
for line outage condition and base case voltage magnitude; 0.0046 p.u. but the rating of SVC is -0.1106 which is higher
∆|𝑉𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 | is the value set by the utility engineers indicating as compared to that of contingency case. When the losses
how much they wish to limit a bus voltage from changing on were considered then it was observed that the losses at bus 30
outage case. was lower than at bus 7. Table 5 and Table 6 show the voltage
profile and performance for load variation on IEEE 30 bus
It has been observed that NR load flow converges for 37 line system.
outages out of 41 line outages. The VPI gives the idea about
severity of a contingency. On the basis of VPI, the ranking 6.1.4 Impact of SVC at bus 7 during load
order of severe contingencies in descending order is 36, 5, 9, variation and line outage 5
37, 26, 11 and so on. In this paper two most critical This case shows the effect of connecting SVC at bus 7 and 30
contingencies i.e. outage of line no. 36 and 5 have been one by one when the load is varied (± 30%) and outage of line
considered for the placement of SVC. 5 occurs. The voltage profile observed on all the buses was
good but not as good as the first case when the SVC was
6.1 Line Outages Contingency connected at bus 30. The voltage deviation is zero but the
The first case considered for placement of SVC is the line power losses are much more comparing when the load is
outage 36, which provides highest value of VPI and hence is varied at bus 30. The Table 7 and Table 8 show the voltage
the most severe contingency. To place an SVC optimally, this profile and performance observed for the system.
line outage condition has been analyzed in detail.
6.2 Comparison of both the cases for Line
6.1.1 Impact of SVC at bus 30 with line outage 36
It is clear from Table 1 that the voltages at bus 30, 29, 27 and
outage 36 and Line outage 5
When the line outages cases for the lines 36 and 5 were
26 are very low. These 4 buses are considered one by one for considered it was observed that the voltage profile was
selecting optimal location of SVC. But due to limited space, maintained when SVC was connected at bus 30. For line
the voltage profiles for line outage 36 with SVC placed at bus outage 36 the voltage profile was better than that for line
nos. 30 and 29 are shown in Table1. The developed load flow outage 5, when SVC was connected at bus 7. The real and
program also calculates the rating of SVC to maintain the reactive losses, rating and voltage deviations for both the
voltage magnitude 1.0 p.u. at the connected bus. Table 2 cases were analyzed for system. The voltage deviation for line
outage 36 when SVC placed at bus 30 was 0.0493 p.u. and the
depicts the performance of the power system with and without
real losses were 0.1272 and reactive losses were 0.2570 which
SVC. It includes rating of SVC to maintain the voltage is smaller than when the SVC is placed at bus 7. So in both
magnitude 1 p.u., voltage deviations, and real and reactive the cases the bus 30 is the optimal location to place SVC to
power losses at the connected bus. It was found that the size maintain the voltage profile of the power system.
of SVC at bus 29 was slightly smaller than at bus 30 but the 6.3 Comparison for the cases when load is
voltage deviation, the real and reactive power losses at bus 29
varied randomly
was much greater than those with SVC at bus 30. The voltage When the load variation is done randomly, the voltage profile
deviation at bus 30 is 0.0653p.u. which is minimum of all the of the buses with SVC connected at bus 30 and at bus 7 was
four cases. Hence, the optimal location for the placement of computed. It was found that the voltages at bus 29 and 30
SVC may be bus 30 as far as the most critical line outage 36 is when SVC is placed at bus 7 were not good i.e.0.9952, 0.9796
concerned. p.u. But when these results are compared with the other case
when SVC is connected at bus 30 the voltage are much
6.1.2 Impact of SVC at bus 7 with line outage 5 improved as 1.011 and 1.00 p.u. the losses real and reactive
The voltage profile for line outage 5 is shown in Table 3. It
were improved as for SVC at bus 30 it was 17.2360MW and
has been observed from table 3 that voltages at bus 7, 5 and
41.7615MVAR which are much less than that when SVC is
30 was very low. So, to place the SVC optimally, this line
placed at bus 7. The Table 9 and Figure 4 show and compare
outage contingency is also analyzed. As we cannot connect

47
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

the voltage profile of the system with SVC at bus 7 and bus 0.8884
27 0.9928 0.9891
30. From these, bus 30 is found to be the optimal location for
SVC to improve voltage profile and to reduce losses, 28 1.0137 1.0158 1.0158
29 0.8651 0.991 1
7. CONCLUSION 0.8517
30 1 0.9748
In this paper, a method for optimal placement and sizing of
SVC has been proposed for improving the voltage profile and
reducing the system losses in a power system. On the basis of
VPI two most critical contingencies and two optimal
locations of SVC were selected. With SVC connected on the Table 2 Performance of IEEE 30-Bus System With and
selected buses, their impact on power system under single line Without SVC for line outage 36
outages and random load variation in wide range has been Without
analyzed and compared for the selection of optimal location Bus Number SVC With SVC
of SVC for a power system. Though the proposed approach
at 30 at 29
has been implemented on IEEE 30 bus system, the same can SVC Rating
be implemented on practical power systems as well. (p.u.) - -0.1206 -0.1158
Real Power
Table 1 Voltage profile of IEEE 30 bus system with and Losses(p.u.) 0.179 0.1381 0.1383
without SVC for line outage 36
Line outage 36 Reactive Power 0.4877 0.2789 0.2795
Bus Without With SVC With SVC
number SVC at bus 30 at bus 29
1 1.06 1.06 1.06
2 1.043 1.043 1.043
3 1.0186 1.021 1.021
4 1.0093 1.0123 1.0122
Table 3 Voltage profile on IEEE 30 bus system with SVC
5 1.01 1.01 1.01 for line outage 5
Line outage 5
6 1.0095 1.0122 1.0122
1.0019 Bus Without SVC With SVC at With SVC at
7 1.0036 1.0035 Number bus 30 bus 7
8 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.06
1 1.06 1.06
9 1.0374 1.0513 1.0511 1.043
2 1.043 1.043
10 1.0184 1.0457 1.0452 1.0109
3 1.0154 1.0157
11 1.082 1.082 1.082 1.0009
4 1.0064 1.0067
12 1.0481 1.058 1.0578 0.9318
5 1.01 1.01
13 1.071 1.071 1.071 0.9988
1.0292 6 1.0071 1.0076
14 1.0427 1.0424
0.9596
1.0196 7 0.9964 1
15 1.0364 1.036
1.01
16 1.0282 1.0455 1.0452 8 1.01 1.01
1.0434
17 1.0159 1.0403 1.0399 9 1.0481 1.0481
1.0358
18 1.0068 1.0275 1.0271 10 1.0408 1.0407
1.082
19 1.0024 1.0254 1.025 11 1.082 1.082
1.0056 1.0523
20 1.0297 1.0293 12 1.0554 1.0553
1.0022 1.071
21 1.0319 1.0314 13 1.071 1.071
22 1.0017 1.032 1.0314 1.0369
14 1.0404 1.0403
23 0.9957 1.0221 1.0214 1.0315
15 1.0353 1.0351
24 0.9729 1.0121 1.0109 1.0379
16 1.0418 1.0418
25 0.9135 0.9925 0.9898 1.031
17 1.0357 1.0356
26 0.8938 0.9744 0.9716 1.0207
18 1.0251 1.0249

48
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

1.0175 18 1.0284 1.0275

19 1.0221 1.0219
1.0213 19 1.0272 1.0254
20 1.026 1.0258
1.0234 20 1.032 1.0297
21 1.0287 1.0284
1.024 21 1.0366 1.0319
22 1.0294 1.029
1.02 22 1.037 1.032
23 1.0248 1.0242
23 1.0269 1.0221
1.0131
24 1.0191 1.018 24 1.0235 1.0121
1.0091
25 1.0179 1.0149 25 1.0198 0.9925
0.9912
26 1.0003 0.9972 26 1.0022 0.9744
1.0152 27 1.0261 0.9928
27 1.0257 1.0215
1.006 28 1.0103 1.0158
28 1.0074 1.0073
0.9952 29 1.0063 0.991
29 1.0086 1.0017
0.9836 30 0.9949 1
30 1 0.9902

Table 6 Performance of IEEE 30-Bus System With SVC

for Load Variation and line outage 36
SVC
Table 4 Performance of IEEE 30-Bus System With SVC rating(p.u.) 0.0617 -0.1106
for line outage 5 deviation 0.048 0.0046
With SVC at bus With SVC at bus Real power
Bus number 30 7 loss(p.u.) 0.0441 0.0404
Real power Reactive
losses (p.u.) 0.0362 0.0397 power loss
Reactive (p.u.) 0.0891i 0.0816i
power losses
(p.u.) 0.0564i 0.0618i
SVC rating Table 7 Comparison of Voltage Profile of IEEE 30 bus
(p.u.) -0.0153 -0.0655 system Load Variation and line outage 5
Table 5 Voltage Profile of IEEE 30 bus system for Load
Variation with line outage 36 Bus number SVC at bus 7 SVC at bus 30
1 1.06 1.06
Bus number SVC at bus 7 SVC at bus 30
2 1.043 1.043
1 1.06 1.06
3 1.0155 1.0152
2 1.043 1.043
4 1.0065 1.0061
3 1.025 1.021
5 1.01 1.01
4 1.0117 1.0123
6 1.0073 1.0067
5 1.01 1.01
7 1 0.9962
6 1.0113 1.0122
8 1.01 1.01
7 1 1.0036
9 1.0479 1.0479
8 1.01 1.01
10 1.0405 1.0406
9 1.0533 1.0513
11 1.082 1.082
10 1.0493 1.0457
12 1.0552 1.0552
11 1.082 1.082
13 1.071 1.071
12 1.0531 1.058
14 1.0402 1.0403
13 1.071 1.071
15 1.035 1.0352
14 1.039 1.0427
16 1.0416 1.0417
15 1.0357 1.0364
17 1.0354 1.0356
16 1.0262 1.0455
18 1.0247 1.0249
17 1.0077 1.043
19 1.0218 1.0219

49
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

20 1.0257 1.0258 5 1.01 1.01

21 1.0282 1.0285 6 1.0096 1.0122
22 1.0288 1.0292 7 1 1.0035
23 1.024 1.0246 8 1.01 1.01
24 1.0179 1.019 9 1.0475 1.0526
25 1.0146 1.0177 10 1.385 1.0476
26 0.9969 1.0001 11 1.082 1.082
27 1.0213 1.0256 12 1.0542 1.0604
28 1.0071 1.0071 13 1.071 1.071
29 1.0014 1.0085 14 1.0397 1.0451
30 0.9899 1 15 1.0333 1.0404
16 1 1.0489
Table 8 Performance of IEEE 30-Bus System With SVC 17 1.0341 1.0435
during Load Variation 18 1.0226 1.03
SVC rating
19 1.0192 1.0275
(p.u.) -0.0698 -0.0158
Real power 20 1.023 1.0319
losses (p.u.) 0.441 0.0404
21 1.0247 1.0342
Reactive
power losses 22 1.0254 1.035
(p.u.) 0.0891i 0.0816i 23 1.022 1.0299
Table 9 Comparison of Voltage Profiles of IEEE 30 bus
during Load Variation 24 1.0142 1.0241
SVC SVC 25 1.009 1.0245
Bus number at bus 7 at bus 30
26 0.9883 1.0121
1 1.06 1.06
27 1.0158 1.0307
2 1.043 1.043
28 1.0075 1.0111
3 1.0191 1.0221
29 0.9901 1.0112
4 1.012 1.0136
30 0.9754 1

1.55
1.45
1.35
1.25 SVC at bus 7
SVC at bus 30
1.15
1.05
0.95
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Figure 4. Voltage deviation when randomly the load is varied

01-2010 and Director, Madhav Institute of Technology &

Science, Gwalior, India to carry out this research work.
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely acknowledge the financial assistance
received from Department of Science and Technology, New
Delhi, India vide letter no. SR/S3/EECE/0064/2009, dated 22-

50
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 32– No.6, October 2011

9. REFERENCES [8] El. Metwally M. M., El Emary A. A., El Bemdray F. M.,

[1] Arthit Sode- Yome and N.Mithulananthan, “Comparision and Mosaad M.I. , “Optimal Allocation of FACTS
of shunt capacitor, SVC and STATCOM in static voltage Devices in Power System Using Genetic Algorithim” ,
stability margin enhancement,” International Journal of IEEE Trans., 2008.
Electrical Engineering Education [9] H.Ambriz-Perez, E.Acha, and C.R. Fuerte-Esquivel,
[2] P. Kundur, 1. Paserba, V. Ajjarapu, G. Anderson, A. “Advanced SVC models for Newton-Raphson Load
Bose, C.A. Canizares, N. HatziargYfiou, D. Hill, A. Flow and Newton Optimal Power Flow studies”, IEEE
Stankovic, C. Taylor, T. Van Cutsem, and V. Vittal, Trans. on Power Systems 15(1) 129-136.
"Definition and Classification of Power System [10] R. Minguez, F.Milano, R Zarate-Minano, A.J. Conejo,
Instability," IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol. 19, “Optimal Network Placement of SVC Devices,’ IEEE
No.2, pp.1387-1401, May 2004. Trans. On Power Systems, Vol.22, No.4, Nov.2007.
[3] Z.T.Faur, "Effects of FACTS Devices on Static Voltage [11] Abdelaziz Laifa and Mohamed Boudour, “Optimal
Collapse Phenomena," M.S. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Location of SVC for Voltage Security Enhancement
Eng., Univ. of Waterloo, 1996. using MOPSO”, Journal of electrical systems,Special
[4] J.G.Singh, S.N.Singh, S.C.Srivastava, “An Approach for Issue N. 01:Nov. 2009.
optimal Placement of Static Var Compensators Based on [12] E. Acha, C.R. Fuerte, H. Ambriz and C. Angeles. FACTS
Reactive Power Spot Price”, IEEE Trans. On Power :Modelling and Simulation in Power Networks, John
Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, November 2007. Willey & Sons, Ltd.
[5] CIGRE,WorkingGroup38-01,TaskForceNo.2on SVC [13] S.Gerbex, R. Cherkauoi, A.J. Germond, “ Optimal
Compensators, I.A.Bprimez., Ed., 1986. Location of FACTS Devices to Enhance Power System
[6] Gerbex,S., Cherkaoui,R., Germond A.J., “Optimal Security”2003 IEEE conference , june 23 -26 , Italy
Location of Multitype FACTS devices in a Power [14] T.J.E.Miller, Reactive Power control in Electric systems:
System by means of Genetic Algorithim” , IEEE Wiley Interscience, 1982.
Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 16,pp.537-
544,August 2001. [15] Hadi Saadat, “Power System Analysis”, Tata
McGRAW-HILL Edition.
[7] Cai L. J. and Erlich I., “ Optimal choice and allocation
of FACTS devices using Gnetic Algorithim”, IEEE [16] A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg. Power Generation
Transactions of Power system,pp.1 -6. Operation and Control. 2nd ed. John Willey & Sons
Inc.

51