International Journal of Applied Power Engineering (IJAPE)

Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 247~254

ISSN: 2252-8792, DOI: 10.11591/ijape.v13.i1.pp247-254  247

Series and shunt FACTS controllers based optimal reactive

power dispatch

Manoj Kumar Kar1, R. N. Ramakant Parida2, Subhasis Dash2

1
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tolani Maritime Institute, Pune, India
2
School of Computer Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (DU), Bhubaneswar, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Optimal reactive power dispatch involves the determination and
management of reactive power resources in a power system to maintain
Received Jun 7, 2023 voltage stability, improve power transfer capability, and minimize system
Revised Nov 15, 2023 losses. Reactive power is essential for maintaining voltage levels within
Accepted Nov 28, 2023 acceptable limits and ensuring the reliable operation of electrical networks.
The whale optimization algorithm (WOA) has been proposed to obtain the
optimal location of flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS)
Keywords: components. The efficacy of WOA is tested using conventional IEEE 14 and
30 bus test systems. Static var compensator (SVC) is used as shunt and the
Active power loss thyristor-controlled series capacitor (TCSC) as a series FACTS controller.
Operating cost The analysis is carried out for both the systems with and without FACTS
SVC controllers. Optimization techniques are applied to select the optimal control
TCSC parameters. The suggested strategy is compared to other contemporary
Whale optimization algorithm techniques such as particle swarm optimization (PSO) and grey wolf
optimization (GWO). At various loading situations, the WOA-based
technique outperforms other two techniques.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Manoj Kumar Kar
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tolani Maritime Institute
Pune, India
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to rising power consumption, the electrical networks are becoming more complicated day by
day. The deficit power demand can be fulfilled either by building new transmission lines or by increasing the
performance of the existing system. The construction of transmission lines is not recommended because of
economic and environmental factors. It is also critical to make effective use of existing transmission lines.
Flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS) controllers are installed in the current power
system to increase the power transmission line's maximum transfer capacity.
This literature review aims to investigate and summarize the existing research on reactive power
planning of IEEE 14 and 30 bus systems using metaheuristic techniques. FACTS devices offer significant
benefits in terms of grid control [1], stability [2], and system security [3]. Power system stability is also
achieved by incorporating FACTS devices [4]. The several FACTS controller types are described in [5].
Different strategies can be used to optimize reactive power, however most of them are being suffered from
premature convergence [6]. Evolutionary approaches provide a higher potential for reliable and cost-effective
power system operation [7]. The FACTS devices' allotment procedures are classified as heuristic or
analytical [8]. FACTS devices are used to discuss the optimal power flow model [9]–[11]. A series
compensator is used to address a power flow control approach [12]. FACTS based power flow analysis are
explained in [13]. The reactive power planning (RPP) challenges are described in [14]. A unique technique

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

248  ISSN: 2252-8792

for optimally positioning FACTS controllers in multi-objective issues is explored [15]. A novel sine cosine
algorithm is used in [16] to address the minimizing of loss and running cost. The selection of weak buses is
determined for establishing a reactive power supply. The operating cost is minimized in IEEE 14 [17] and 30
bus [18], [19]. On the basis of the steady state model of these controllers, the control of power flow is
investigated in [20]. The ideal position for the FACTS controllers is chosen using a loss sensitivity and
performance index sensitivity technique [21]. By strategically placing a static var compensator (SVC) on the
grid, a multi-objective problem involving increasing system loading and reducing power loss was
solved [22]. Fuzzy-SVC controller is suggested in [23] to improve the system's transient stability. A modified
differential algorithm based on statistical analysis is proposed in [24] for optimal reactive power dispatch.
Though several research works have been done for minimization of losses by incorporating FACTS
controllers, still there are scope for improvement by using some promising and efficient techniques. In this
work, the whale optimization algorithm (WOA) has been implemented for loss and cost optimization.

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The primary objective in this study is to minimize the losses satisfying some constraints. The power
loss can be expressed using (1).

𝑃𝐿 = ∑𝑙𝑘=1 𝐺𝑘 [𝑉𝑎 2 + 𝑉𝑏 2 − 2𝑉𝑎 𝑉𝑏 cos⁡(𝛿𝑎 − 𝛿𝑏 )] (1)

Where, line number is denoted by 𝑙, 𝐺𝑘 denotes conductance of kth line, 𝑉𝑎 and 𝑉𝑏 denotes the respective
voltage of buses 𝑎 and 𝑏; 𝛿𝑎 and 𝛿𝑏 are the respective voltage angle of buses 𝑎 and 𝑏.
The equality restrictions definition using (2) and (3).

b n
PGx − PDx − Va ∑b=1 Vb [Gab cos(δa − δb ) + Bab sin(δa − δb )] = 0, x = 1,2, … nb (2)

b n
Q Gx − Q Dx − Va ∑b=1 Vb [Gab sin(δa − δb ) − Bab cos(δa − δb )] = 0, x = 1,2, … nb (3)

Where 𝑛𝑏 is bus number PGx and Q Gx indicates both active and reactive power generated. PDx and Q Dx
denotes active and reactive power demand; Gab and Bab denotes respective conductance and susceptance
between buses a and b.
The inequality limitations are defined as generator's voltage limits and reactive power limit given
by (4) and (5).

VG min ≤ VG ≤ VG max (4)

Q 𝐺 min ≤ Q G ≤ Q G max (5)

Transformer tap setting limits are determined by (6).

𝑡 min ≤ t ≤ t max (6)

The shunt capacitor's var output limit is determined by (7).

Q C min ≤ Q C ≤ Q C max (7)

The SVC limit is given by (8).

Q SVCx min ≤ Q SVCx ≤ Q SVCx max (8)

The operating cost is expressed by (9).

COperating = PLoss × 0.06 × 105 × 365 × 24 (9)

3. OPTIMAL POSITIONING OF FACTS CONTROLLERS

Power flow analysis is used to determine the position of FACTS controllers in the transmission line.
The SVC locations are identified as the weak buses. High reactive power lines are considered for thyristor-

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 247-254
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  249

controlled series capacitor (TCSC) deployment. Table 1 shows the position of FACTS controllers in the
systems considered. In a conventional IEEE 14 test system, bus numbers 10, 13, and 14 are assigned to SVC,
whereas line number 7 is assigned to TCSC. The SVC is deployed on buses 21, 7, 17, and 15 in IEEE 30 bus
system, whereas the TCSC is located on lines 5, 25, 41, and 28.

Table 1. Location of FACTS controllers

Standard Line number for TCSC placement Buses for SVC placement
IEEE 14 7 10,13,14
IEEE 30 5, 25, 28, 41 7, 15, 17, 21

4. WOA METHOD
It is a nature-inspired optimization technique based on the social behavior of humpback whales [25].
It mimics the hunting strategy of whales, where a leader whale guides a group to locate prey. In WOA,
potential solutions are represented as a population of whales, with the best solution being the leader. Whales
move towards the leader to improve their fitness, and as the optimization process progresses, they gradually
converge towards the global optimum. The algorithm incorporates exploration and exploitation phases,
balancing exploration of new areas and exploitation of promising regions. WOA is applied in various
optimization problems to find optimal solutions efficiently. The humpback whale's hunting techniques
include searching and encircling the target, and feeding bubble-net.

4.1. Searching and encircling target

When hunting, whales simulate searching and encircling prey. Whales move towards the prey
(optimal solution) while maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation. The leader whale
guides the group's movements, ultimately converging towards the prey by encircling it to find the optimal
solution in the search space. This process can be expressed mathematically in (10) and (11).

⃗ = |𝑃⃗ . ⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝐷 𝑋 ∗ (𝑡) − 𝑋 (𝑡)| (10)

𝑋(𝑡 + 1) = ⃗⃗⃗⃗ ⃗ .𝐷
𝑋 ∗ (𝑡) − 𝑄 ⃗ (11)

Where 𝐷⃗ represents the distance between whale and target, 𝑡 is the current iteration, and the position vector is
represented by 𝑋. Vectors 𝑄⃗ and 𝑃⃗ are shown in (12) and (13).

⃗ = 2𝑞 . 𝑟 − 𝑞
𝑄 (12)

𝑃⃗ = 2. 𝑟 (13)

𝑞 is reduced from two to zero.

4.2. Bubble-net feeding method

The difference between whale and prey is estimated by (14).

⃗ . 𝑒 𝑘𝑙 cos(2𝜋𝑙) + ⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑋(𝑡 + 1) = 𝐷 𝑋 ∗ (𝑡) (14)

Where, 𝐷 ⃗ = |𝑋⃗⃗⃗⃗∗ (𝑡) − 𝑋 (𝑡)|; 𝑙 is any value in [-1,1]; 𝑘 is a constant. The formula for the updated whale
location is expressed as (15).

⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑋 ∗ (𝑡) − 𝑄⃗ .𝐷
⃗ ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑖𝑓⁡𝑚 < 0.5
𝑋(𝑡 + 1) = { (15)
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝐷 . ⁡𝑒 cos(2𝜋𝑙) + ⃗⃗⃗⃗
′ 𝑘𝑙⁡
𝑋 ∗ (𝑡)⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑖𝑓⁡𝑚 ≥ 0.5

𝑚 is any number in the range [0,1].

4.3. Search for prey process

⃗ and given in (16) and (17).
The exploration is achieved by 𝐵

⃗ = 𝑃⃗⁡𝑋𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 𝑋
𝐷 (16)
Series and shunt FACTS controllers based optimal reactive power dispatch (Manoj Kumar Kar)
250  ISSN: 2252-8792

𝑋⁡ ⃗ .𝐷
⃗⃗⃗ (𝑡 + 1) = 𝑋𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 𝑄 ⃗ (17)

𝑋𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 is a random position vector.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

IEEE 14 and 30 bus systems with varying loading are used to examine the effectiveness of WOA for
loss reduction. For a performance comparison, particle swarm optimization (PSO) and grey wolf
optimization (GWO), two promising algorithms, are taken into account. The simulation is run in MATLAB
2019a software, and the graphical comparisons are analyzed. Power flow study identifies the buses 10, 13,
and 14 as weak nodes, and these buses are the ones that will receive SVC installation. The seventh line is
seen to be the most pertinent for the TCSC site. The comparison of active power loss (APL), operational
costs, and % loss reduction under different active and reactive loadings of the IEEE 14 bus system are shown,
respectively, in Tables 2-4. The loss convergence graph of an IEEE 14 bus system is shown in Figures 1-3
for active and reactive loading levels of base, 110%, and 120%. It is evident from the table, WOA reduces
loss, cost, and hence percentage loss reduction significantly with respect to PSO and GWO.

Table 2. Analysis of losses before and after incorporating FACTS controllers under different
loadings in IEEE 14 bus
Loading APL before incorporating APL after incorporating FACTS controllers (p.u.)
(%) FACTS controllers (p.u.) PSO GWO WOA
100 0.1554 0.132769 0.131942 0.040762
110 0.1973 0.1651 0.16392 0.05006
120 0.2295 0.2012 0.1992 0.0670

Table 3. Analysis of operating cost using PSO, GWO, and WOA based approaches in IEEE 14 bus system
Loading Operating Cost before incorporating Operating Cost after incorporating FACTS controllers × 105 in $
(%) FACTS controllers ($) PSO GWO WOA
100 8173080 6978338.64 6934871.52 2142450.72
110 10375344 855878.4 8615635.2 2631153.6
120 15452640 1043020.8 10469952 3521520

Table 4. Loss reduction in percentage at various loadings using PSO, GWO, and WOA methods
in IEEE 14 bus system
Loading (%) PSO GWO WOA
100 14.665 15.149 73.786
110 16.362 16.96 74.36
120 12.292 13.164 70.793

Figure 1. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 14 bus under 100% loading

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 247-254
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  251

Figure 2. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 14 bus under 110% loading

Figure 3. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 14 bus under 120% loading

Tables 5-7 compares, respectively, the losses, operational cost, and percentage loss reduction at
various active and reactive loadings of IEEE 30 bus system. Figures 4-6 shows the loss convergence graph of
an IEEE 30 bus system at base, 110%, and 120% active and reactive loading. It is evident from the
Tables 5-7, WOA reduces loss, cost and hence percentage loss reduction significantly as compared to PSO
and GWO.

Table 5. Analysis of losses with and without FACTS controllers under different loadings in IEEE-30 bus
Loading APL before incorporating APL after incorporating FACTS controllers (p.u.)
(%) FACTS controllers (p.u.) PSO GWO WOA
100 0.0719 0.069653 0.069138 0.068914
110 0.0970 0.094756 0.094513 0.094122
120 0.1288 0.12473 0.12369 0.080357

Table 6. Comparison of operating cost using PSO, GWO, and WOA based approaches
in IEEE 30 bus system
Loading Operating cost before incorporating Operating cost after incorporating FACTS controllers ×10 5 in $
(%) FACTS controllers ($) PSO GWO WOA
100 3779064 3660961.68 3633893.28 357250.176
4110 5098320 4980375.36 4967603.28 4946947.2
120 6769728 6555808.8 6501146.4 42235639.2

Series and shunt FACTS controllers based optimal reactive power dispatch (Manoj Kumar Kar)
252  ISSN: 2252-8792

Table 7. Loss reduction in percentage at various loadings using PSO, GWO, and WOA methods
in IEEE-30 bus system
Loading (%) PSO GWO WOA
100 3.125 3.841 4.152
110 2.313 2.563 2.969
120 3.159 3.967 37.61

Figure 4. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 30 bus under 100% loading

Figure 5. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 30 bus under 110% loading

Figure 6. Loss convergence curve of IEEE 30 bus under 120% loading

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 247-254
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  253

6. CONCLUSION
The optimal placement of FACTS devices for reactive power planning requires a detailed power
system analysis, including load flow studies, and voltage stability analysis. In this study, the efficacy of the
WOA is analyzed by considering the IEEE 14 and 30 bus system. The outcomes of optimization approaches
based on PSO and GWO are compared to the outcomes of a WOA-based approach. It has been observed
from the result that WOA outperforms PSO and GWO in IEEE 14 and 30 bus systems under base, 110% and
120% loading. Active power loss and hence operating expenses are greatly reduced in both the IEEE 14 and
30 bus systems. As a result, it can be suggested that WOA is a superior optimization technique for volt
amperes reactive (VAR) planning of power systems. This work may be extended for higher test bus system to
achieve better performance in terms of operating cost and voltage stability.

REFERENCES
[1] A. B. Birchfield, T. Xu, and T. J. Overbye, “Power flow convergence and reactive power planning in the creation of large
synthetic grids,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6667–6674, Nov. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2813525.
[2] R. Kumar, R. Singh, and H. Ashfaq, “Stability enhancement of multi-machine power systems using Ant colony optimization-
based static Synchronous Compensator,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 83, p. 106589, May 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106589.
[3] K. Kavitha and R. Neela, “Optimal allocation of multi-type FACTS devices and its effect in enhancing system security using
BBO, WIPSO & PSO,” Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 777–793, Dec. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.jesit.2017.01.008.
[4] M. K. Kar, “Stability analysis of multi-machine system using FACTS devices,” International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2136–2145, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13198-023-02044-6.
[5] P. Moore and P. Ashmole, “Flexible AC transmission systems,” Power Engineering Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 282–286, Dec.
1995, doi: 10.1049/pe:19950610.
[6] K. Iba, “Reactive power optimization by genetic algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 685–692,
May 1994, doi: 10.1109/59.317674.
[7] L. L. Lai and J. T. Ma, “Application of evolutionary programming to reactive power planning-comparison with nonlinear
programming approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 198–206, 1997, doi: 10.1109/59.574940.
[8] A. M. Shaheen, S. R. Spea, S. M. Farrag, and M. A. Abido, “A review of meta-heuristic algorithms for reactive power planning
problem,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 215–231, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2015.12.003.
[9] Y. Muhammad, R. Khan, M. A. Z. Raja, F. Ullah, N. I. Chaudhary, and Y. He, “Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch with
FACTS devices: A survey,” Energy Reports, vol. 6, pp. 2211–2229, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.030.
[10] H. Yapici, “Solution of optimal reactive power dispatch problem using pathfinder algorithm,” Engineering Optimization, vol. 53,
no. 11, pp. 1946–1963, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1080/0305215X.2020.1839443.
[11] K. Mahmoud and M. Lehtonen, “Simultaneous allocation of multi-type distributed generations and capacitors using generic
analytical expressions,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 182701–182710, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2960152.
[12] R. J. Nelson, J. Bian, and S. L. Williams, “Transmission series power flow control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
10, no. 1, pp. 504–510, 1995, doi: 10.1109/61.368361.
[13] S. Gerbex, R. Cherkaoui, and A. J. Germond, “Optimal location of multi-type FACTS devices in a power system by means of
genetic algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 537–544, 2001, doi: 10.1109/59.932292.
[14] M. S. Saddique et al., “Solution to optimal reactive power dispatch in transmission system using meta-heuristic
techniques―Status and technological review,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 178, p. 106031, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.epsr.2019.106031.
[15] A. A. A. El Ela, M. A. Abido, and S. R. Spea, “Differential evolution algorithm for optimal reactive power dispatch,” Electric
Power Systems Research, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 458–464, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2010.10.005.
[16] S. K. Gupta, M. K. Kar, L. Kumar, and S. Kumar, “A simplified sine cosine algorithm for the solution of optimal reactive power
dispatch,” International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 2022, pp. 1–14, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/2165966.
[17] M. K. Kar and P. K. Tripathy, “Techno-economic evaluation of power system by optimal placement of FACTS devices,” in 2023
International Conference on Communication, Circuits, and Systems (IC3S), May 2023, pp. 1–5. doi:
10.1109/IC3S57698.2023.10169231.
[18] S. K. Gupta, L. Kumar, M. K. Kar, and S. Kumar, “Optimal reactive power dispatch under coordinated active and reactive load
variations using FACTS devices,” International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 13, pp. 2672–
2682, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s13198-022-01736-9.
[19] A. M. Shaheen, R. A. El-Sehiemy, and S. M. Farrag, “A reactive power planning procedure considering iterative identification of
VAR candidate buses,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 653–674, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-3098-1.
[20] D. J. Gotham and G. T. Heydt, “Power flow control and power flow studies for systems with FACTS devices,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 60–65, 1998, doi: 10.1109/59.651614.
[21] R. Srinivasa Rao and V. Srinivasa Rao, “A generalized approach for determination of optimal location and performance analysis
of FACTs devices,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 73, pp. 711–724, Dec. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.06.004.
[22] I. M. Wartana, N. P. Agustini, and S. Sreedharan, “Optimal integration of wind energy with a shunt-FACTS controller for
reductions in electrical power loss,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 41–
53, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v23.i1.pp41-53.
[23] M. M. A. Hassan, X. Sun, and A. Ate, “FLC based on static var compensator for power system transient stability enhancement,”
TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), vol. 18, no. 5, p. 2665, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.12928/telkomnika.v18i5.15605.
[24] M. K. Kar, S. Kumar, A. K. Singh, and S. Panigrahi, “Reactive power management by using a modified differential evolution
algorithm,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 967–986, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1002/oca.2815.

Series and shunt FACTS controllers based optimal reactive power dispatch (Manoj Kumar Kar)
254  ISSN: 2252-8792

[25] S. Mirjalili and A. Lewis, “The whale optimization algorithm,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 95, pp. 51–67, May 2016,
doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Manoj Kumar Kar is currently working as a senior assistant professor in

Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Tolani Maritime Institute, Pune, India. He
received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from National Institute of Technology,
Jamshedpur, India in 2022; his M.Tech. in Power Electronics and Control Drives from Veer
Surendra Sai University of Technology (VSSUT), Burla, India, in 2014; and his B.Tech. from
Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT), Odisha, India, in 2010. He has 10+ years of
teaching and research experience. He published several research papers in international journal
and conferences. His research area includes power system stability, optimal reactive power
dispatch, multilevel inverter, and application of FACTS controllers. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

R. N. Ramakant Parida is currently working as an assistant professor in School

of Computer Engineering, KIIT University (DU), Bhubaneswar, India. He is currently
pursuing his Ph.D. degree from National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, India; his
M.Tech. in CSE from IIT Kharagpur, India, in 2012; and his B.Tech. from CET,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, in 2009. He has 10+ years of teaching and research experience.
He published several research papers in international journal and conferences. His research
area includes image processing, security, water marking, and application of optimization
algorithms. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Subhasis Dash is currently working as an assistant professor in School of

Computer Engineering, KIIT University (DU), Bhubaneswar, India. He received his Ph.D. in
CSE from KIIT (DU), India, in 2020; his M.Tech. in CSE from KIIT (DU); and B.Tech. in
CSE from Utkal University, Odisha, India, in 2006. He has 15+ years of teaching and
research experience. He published several research papers in international journal and
conferences. His research area includes wireless sensor networks, distributed computing,
operating systems, and application of metaheuristic algorithms. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 247-254