www.ietdl.

org

Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Received on 29th April 2009
Revised on 21st December 2009
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221

ISSN 1751-8687

Optimal flexible alternative current

transmission system device allocation under
system fluctuations due to demand and
renewable generation
S.J. Galloway1 I.M. Elders1 G.M. Burt 1 B. Sookananta2
1
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The Institute for Energy and Environment, The University of Strathclyde,
204, George Street, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK
2
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Ubonratchathani University, Ubonratchathani 34190, Thailand
E-mail: stuart.galloway@strath.ac.uk

Abstract: This study proposes two methods for the optimal placement of flexible alternative current transmission
system (FACTS) devices considering variations in demand and renewable generation output. The basic
optimisation technique utilised is the differential evolution algorithm and the objective is to minimise the cost
of generation. The static performance of the FACTS device is considered here. Simulation shows that with
renewable generation present in the network, the system state at peak demand is not always the most
suitable state to use for the determination of the optimal FACTS allocation. From this, techniques based on
the Monte Carlo simulation are proposed to determine the location for which the operation of FACTS device
gives highest benefit in terms of saving cost of conventional generation. These techniques collectively are
called renewable uncertainty-based optimal FACTS allocation techniques. This study shows the effectiveness of
the techniques in the determination of the optimal FACTS placement for networks with a high penetration of
renewable generation.

Nomenclature xij reactance of the line connecting bus i to bus j

xTCSC reactance of the TCSC
CV coefficient of variation
r a random number uniformly distributed
DE differential evolution under [0, 1]
GA genetic algorithm m mean
IEEE- IEEE reliability test system s standard deviation
RTS
P active power
MCS Monte Carlo simulation
Si the state of the generating unit at bus i
OPF optimal power flow
FR failure rate of the corresponding generating unit
RTS- reliability test system for educational purposes
EP p.d.f. probability density function
TCSC the thyristor-controlled series capacitor DT total demand
i, j buses at the ends of the line being monitored GT total generation
c, k observed parameter for Weibull distribution LT total losses
d demand CG cost of electricity generation

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735 725
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
www.ietdl.org
Gi power output of generation at bus i
Gimin minimum power output of generation at bus i
Gimax maximum power output of generation at bus i
MVAij the apparent power flowing along line ij
MVAmax
ij maximum allowable transaction amount from bus
i to bus j
Vi bus voltage at bus i
1 Introduction
Recently, transmission line utilisation has increased
substantially because of the marketing of power from
merchant (non-utility-owned) power plants under
deregulated environments. When the transmission capacity
is constrained, an electrical utility must offer to enlarge its
transmission capacity to provide transmission services under
the rules of certain regulators [1]. However, obtaining
approval to site and build new transmission capacity is
becoming more difficult due to the social and especially
environmental concerns. Therefore increasing transmission
capability along existing routes and making maximum use
of existing transmission system assets through upgrades is
an attractive alternative, and the use of flexible alternative
current transmission system (FACTS) devices is one of the
options available.
To determine the optimal allocation of FACTS devices in
order to obtain the highest possible benefit from them, a
suitable optimisation technique should be utilised. A variety
of optimisation techniques, including linear programming
[2], sequential quadratic programming [3], Tabu search [4]
and particle swarm optimisation [5] have been applied to
the allocation problem. Some of these methods require
modification of power flow equations and are applied to
convex and continuous functions. With more flexible
characteristics, heuristic optimisation methods can be
applied more generally. A frequently used technique for the
FACTS placement problem is the genetic algorithm (GA),
which is an evolutionary optimisation technique that has
been shown to be able to accommodate the problem
complexity [6, 7] even though they often perform slowly.
An evolutionary optimisation technique, called differential
evolution (DE), is employed in this paper. This technique
can be used to provide a faster and more computationally
tractable solution compared to the GA [8].
There is an increasing trend to replace existing thermal
generation capacity with low carbon sources, including
renewable generation [9]. When some types of renewable
generation are introduced to the power system, the problem
of intermittency is also added. This paper investigates the
problem of allocation of FACTS devices while taking
account of system state variability due to uncertain demand
and intermittent renewable generation. Wind generation is
selected in this paper to represent the impact of renewable
726
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
generation technologies. This paper also recommends the
suitable system state for which the FACTS allocation
solution should be derived. This paper utilises two
techniques for determination of the optimal FACTS
placement considering variations in demand and renewable
generation output. These techniques are based on the use
of Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). The first technique is
for estimating the system state, which the corresponding
optimal solution for FACTS allocation problem would give
the highest annual benefit in terms of saving cost of
conventional generation. The second technique is for
estimating the optimal placement of FACTS devices. This
paper also recommends the suitable system state for which
the FACTS allocation solution should be derived.
2 Background
The numerical example in this paper is only for the thyristor-
controlled series capacitor (TCSC). However, the discussion
and methods presented in this paper can be applied to
FACTS devices in general. The following sections provide
some background to the problem domain.
2.1 FACTS device modelling
The configuration of a typical TCSC from a steady-state
perspective is the fixed capacitor with a thyristor-controlled
reactor [6] as shown in Fig. 1. The total equivalent
impedance of the compensator, xTCSC is a function of the
capacitive and inductive reactances and the firing angle of
thyristor valves. For simplicity, the compensation of TCSC
for the line connecting bus i to bus j is represented as
shown in Fig. 2.
The control limits on the thyristor firing angle are
converted and simply represented by line compensation
limits. To not over compensate, the maximum value of the
capacitance is fixed at 70% compensation and the
maximum value of the inductance is fixed at 20%
compensation [6, 10]. These limits are taken as one of the
constraints for the TCSC allocation problem.
2.2 Optimisation procedure – DE
DE is an evolutionary optimisation technique. The key parts
of the method are a scheme for generating trial parameter
vectors and the use of a weighted difference between two
population vectors to form a third candidate vector. The
concept of the technique is illustrated in Fig. 3 as presented
in [8].
Figure 1 TCSC configuration
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725– 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221

Figure 2 Steady-state equivalent of TCSC
Open source code of the DE [8] is utilised in this study.
The searching process starts with a random initial
population for which the fitness value for each population
member is then evaluated. For optimal minimisation, the
population member with the smallest fitness value is
recorded. Three members are then randomly picked from
the initial population. The operation of the DE algorithm
is used to introduce mutation into subsequent populations
by adding the weighted difference between two members
(population vectors) to form a third vector (base). The
resultant population is called a mutant population. The old
population members are replaced by the random mutant
population members at a rate based on a cross-over fraction
(probability). The fitness values of the new candidate
population members obtained after cross-over are then
compared with those of the old populations and the ones
Figure 3 Differential evolution concept
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221
www.ietdl.org
with better fitness values are entered to the new population.
The best member with smallest (largest for maximisation)
fitness value is maintained and updated. The procedure
is repeated until a stopping criterion is met. For
minimisation, the searching process would stop when the
best fitness found is less than a target value or it would
stop when the number of iterations exceeds a specified
number.
In this paper, the source code [8] is modified to stop the
solution space search when the best solution found within a
specified number of iterations is changed less than a
specified tolerance. The number of iterations for each
evaluation of change in best solutions is found to be 40 and
tolerance is 0.01. The cross-over fraction (probability) and
population size are 0.5 and 20, respectively. These
particular DE parameters are selected after a number of
different empirical trials and give better performance
against simulation test problems.
2.3 Monte Carlo simulation
MCS is the general designation for stochastic simulation
using random numbers and can be used to solve not only
stochastic but also deterministic problems [11]. It can be
727
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
www.ietdl.org
used to develop the system state including demand and wind
generation output for each trial through random sampling. In
this paper, it is used because a stochastic output of the wind
generation is involved.
2.3.1 Demand estimation: To generate random
demand values, a normal distribution is used to represent
the probability density function (p.d.f.) of demand (d ).
Hence, the mean (m) and standard deviation (s) of the set
of demand values in a year are required to represent annual
demand profile. The normal distribution is presented as
 
1 (d − m)2
f (d ) = √ exp − (1)
s 2p 2s2
2.3.2 Wind generation output estimation: To
generate random values of the wind generation output, a
distribution function is utilised, assumed to be the same
form as the wind speed distribution. The Weibull
distribution is commonly used to model wind speed [12].
Since all wind generation capacity is aggregated at a single
network node in the studies presented in this paper, a
Weibull distribution can therefore be used to represent
wind generation output without further consideration of
geographical diversity effects. Thus, the observed
parameters (c and k) for Weibull distribution are required.
Note that the wind generation provides a large number of
zero outputs which in this paper, are regarded as plant
outage. The Weibull distribution is
  k−1   
k P P k
fw (P) = exp − (2)
c c c thermal limit or causes violation of the voltage stability
By using MCS, energy demand and wind generation
output are randomly drawn by using their distribution
characteristics. The availability of a wind generating unit
can be estimated based on corresponding failure rates (FRs)
[11]. First, a random number is generated uniformly. If it
is less than the unit FR, the generating unit is inactive. In
contrast, if it is greater than the FR, the unit is active.
The state of the generating unit at bus i is
0, if r , FR
Si = (3)
1, if r . FR
The estimated demand and wind generation output are
taken for system states that have a high likelihood of
occurrence. Optimal placement of FACTS in these states is
expected to see the highest savings benefits across the full
range of systems states.
2.3.3 Convergence criterion: The coefficient of
variation (CV) is often used as the convergence criterion of
the MCS. The following two stopping rules can be utilised
with normalised mean and standard deviation:
728
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
† Simulation stops when CV is less than the pre-specified
tolerance value.
† Simulation pauses at a given number of samples and it is
checked to see if CV is acceptable. If not, the number of
samples can be increased.
In this paper, MCS is used to develop the hourly state of
the system, including demand and wind generation output
for each trial through random sampling. It is recognised
that the availabilities due to outages of the conventional
generators and other components such as transmission lines
have important stochastic characteristics, but they have not
been included at this stage of the research as the non-
network elements are the focus. Future research will see
network determinants brought to this problem, with the
improved problem characterisation and the accompanying
computational overhead.
3 Problem formulation
In the regulated or power pool-based power system, the
system is operated with optimal generation dispatch in
which the cheapest possible production is obtained within
standard system security and without violation of circuit
flow and voltage constraints. As the cost of production is
one of the key considerations by the system operator, it is
also suitable to be used as an objective function for the
optimal FACTS placement problem. In this case, cost of
system losses is included in the cost of generation.
Under steady-state conditions, when line flows reach the
limit, more expensive generation is dispatched to keep the
network away from these constraints. The FACTS devices
would be used to relieve these constraints and consequently
result in a lower cost of operation as the system is operated
in the remaining expanded constraints. To evaluate this
benefit, cost of generation can be used. Thus, the problem
to be solved is to locate FACTS devices in the network so
as to minimise the cost of generation. An optimally located
device will, therefore, allow the network to be operated
closer to the economic dispatch. Formally, the problem can
be stated as follows
min. f = CG (P) (4)
such that GT = DT + LT (5)
MVAij ≤ MVAmax
ij (6)
Gimin ≤ Gi ≤ Gimax (7)
Vimin ≤ Vi ≤ Vimax (8)
0.3xij ≤ xij − xTCSC ≤ 1.2xij (9)
The constraints (5) – (8) are real power balance, branch
thermal limits, generation limits and voltage stability,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725– 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221
 www.ietdl.org

respectively. Constraint (9) is on FACTS device operation, Table 2 Generation and cost functions of the modified
presented in terms of rated capacity, as discussed in Section RTS-EP
2. The numerical example will be given for only series
compensation, and hence, the limit shown here is the Buses 1 2 3 4 5 6
sizing limit of the series compensator device which is Pmax (MW) 130 170 0 170 0 20.3
allowed to operate both in inductive and capacitive regions.
The solution technique for the problem is presented in the Qmax (MVAr) 75 87 0 106 0 210.25
next section. Qmin (MVAr) 243 250 0 257 0 210.25
cost function 70P 15P 0 15P 0 0
4 Hourly optimisation of FACTS
placement with varying demand
and generation only 2987 h from the total 8760 h that the TCSC provides
compensation and only 639 h that the TCSC provides
This section provides an initial set of case studies for system large cost savings of generation.
state that should be used to obtain the solution with the
corresponding highest annual benefit. The hourly optimal From Fig. 4, the most frequently found solution is branch
allocations of TCSC over a year are determined. The 9. From a study, the optimal location for the peak demand
optimisation problem is performed to achieve the minimum state of the system is branch 7. Note that for this case, at
cost of optimal active power generation as explained in this peak loading state, there is no output from the wind
Section 3. However, the benefit or saving which is a generating unit. Even though branch 9 is the most
difference of the generation cost before and after placing frequently found solution, TCSC at branch 7 gives higher
FACTS device is considered in this numerical example. annual benefits in terms of cost saving of generation.
Normalised demand and wind generation profiles given in Specifically, at branch 7, TCSC provides about £0.7m while
[13] are used to adjust the peak demand and wind generating at branch 9, it provides about £64. Therefore in this case,
output obtained from test data. The optimal FACTS branch 7 should be taken as an optimal allocation for the
allocation is performed by using the DE algorithm in which TCSC. From this study, the device often operates optimally
the MATPOWER 3.0.0 [14] is used to solve the optimal in capacitive region and mostly near its maximum rating.
power flow (OPF) problem and returns the fitness to the DE.

4.1 Case study I 4.2 Case study II

The hourly optimal placements of a series compensator over a
The hourly optimal placements of a series compensator over a
year are determined for the modified IEEE 14-bus test
year are determined for the modified reliability test system for
system [13] and a histogram of the solutions is shown in
educational purposes (RTS-EP); the network data presented
Fig. 5. Wind generation is added on bus 14 with 34 MW
in [15] is modified by adding conventional generation to bus
peak output at 0.8944 pf lagging on the initial state. The
4 and wind generation to bus 6. Demand is increased to stress
cost functions of generation at bus 1, bus 2 and other buses
the system and is given in Table 1. Generation output and
are given as
cost functions are given in Table 2. The demand profiles
are assigned for the system loads as shown in Table 3.
C(PG1 ) = 0.2P 2 + 50P + 1500 (10)
A histogram of the optimal location for TCSC over a year
is shown in Fig. 4. This test network is operated under C(PG2 ) = 0.1225P 2 + 20P + 4000 (11)
unconstrained merit order except when the demand is peak
or near peak. From the simulation, under high demand, C(PG3,G6,G8 ) = 0.085P 2 + 12P + 7300 (12)
the output from wind generation at bus 6 helps to reduce
system congestion. Therefore TCSC operates and gives where PGi is the power output (MW) of the ith generator.
benefits in terms of saving cost of generation only when The demand profiles are assigned for the system loads as
demand is near peak and the output from wind generation
shown in Table 4. The network is stressed by increasing
is too small to release transmission congestion. There are load as shown by the values presented in Table 5.

From Fig. 5, the first and second most frequently utilised

Table 1 Peak demand of the modified RTS-EP locations of a TCSC for this test system are branch 10 and
branch 15, respectively. Annual cost saving from TCSC at
Buses 1 2 3 4 5 6
branch 15 is approximately £0.8m. At branch 10, the
MW 0 50 102 128 76 50 TCSC provides approximately £1.8m, which is the highest
annual benefit in terms of generation cost saving. This
MVAr 0 10 20.4 25.6 15.2 10
location is also optimal for the peak loading state.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735 729
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
www.ietdl.org
Table 3 Type of demand for the modified RTS-EP
Type of demand Domestic economy Domestic unrestricted Commercial Industrial
Buses 2 6
Therefore for this case, branch 10 should be selected for the
installation of the device.
4.3 Case study III
The hourly optimal placements of a series compensator are
further determined for the modified IEEE-RTS, for which
network data is given in [13]. The system has 24 buses and
38 branches. It is modified by adding wind generation at
bus 4. The installed capacity of the wind generation is at
12% of total network demand. This is found to be the
maximum capacity of wind generation that can be accepted
at this node without causing system instability in this case.
The demand profiles are assigned for the system loads as
shown in Table 6 and the histogram of optimal solutions
found in a year are shown in Fig. 6.
From Fig. 6, branch 16 is the most frequently found
solution and branch 23 is the second most frequently found
solution. At the optimal location, the device usually
operates in the capacitive region for almost all states. In
this case, at the peak demand state the fraction of output
from wind generation is 100% and the optimal location of
TCSC for this test network is branch 4. Fig. 6 indicates
that bus 16 is the most likely location for highest cost
savings, but each of the buses is likely with a decreasing
probability. Therefore the annual savings when the device
is optimally operated at each location are determined.
The generation cost savings obtained from the TCSC
when it provides optimal compensation on branches 4, 16
and 23 are calculated. It is found that the annual saving
obtained from branch 16 is £66 538.81. The annual savings
obtained from branch 4 and 23 are £2147.15 and
Figure 4 Histogram of the hourly optimal TCSC allocations
in a year for the modified RTS-EP
730
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
4, 5 3
£53 498.45, respectively. Therefore by considering the
saving values, TCSC on branch 16 gives the highest saving
and it should be taken as the optimal solution.
From case studies, the annual optimal allocations of the
TCSC for the modified IEEE-14 bus and the modified
IEEE-RTS are the locations that are most frequently found
over year. These locations may also be optimal for peak
demand state depending on the renewable generation output
at the state. However, for the modified RTS-EP the optimal
location of TCSC is the optimal location found under the
peak demand period, not the most frequently found over year.
This small test case has different features from the modified
IEEE test cases. It has limited number of conventional
generation connections and the wind generation is located
such that its output helps reducing network congestion
during the peak period. This network normally operates with
merit order, rather than allowing self-dispatching. For this
case, the FACTS device provides benefits only during the
peak period with low output from wind generation.
5 Proposed techniques based on
MCS
From the studies in Section 4, the peak demand state is not
always suitable for implementation with the FACTS
allocation solver, as it does not provide the optimal
solution. Techniques based on MCS are proposed to avoid
the calculation for every changing state of the system in the
optimal FACTS allocation problem. This section proposes
two techniques based on MCS for determination of the
FACTS device allocation considering variations in demand
and renewable generation output. The first technique is to
estimate the system state and determine the solution of the
Figure 5 Histogram of the hourly optimal TCSC allocations
in a year for the modified IEEE 14-bus test system
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725– 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221

Table 4 Type of demand for IEEE-14 bus test system
Type of demand Domestic economy Domestic unrestricted Commercial Industrial
Buses 6, 13, 14
Table 5 Demand for IEEE-14 bus test system
Buses 2 3 4 5
MW 56 245 125 19
MVAr 11.2 45 225 3.8
Table 6 Type of demand for the modified IEEE-RTS
Type of demand Domestic economy Domestic unrestricted
Load 1, 16, 20
problem for this estimated state. This technique is called the
renewable uncertainty-based optimal FACTS allocation
estimated state (RUFA-ES). The second technique is to
estimate the solution of the problem and is called the
renewable uncertainty-based optimal FACTS allocation
estimated FACTS location (RUFA-EL). The proposed
techniques are tested on the case studies used in Section 4
and compared with the optimal locations found in Section 4.
The following subsections provide algorithm for the
proposed techniques and tested results.
5.1 MCS for an estimated system state to
be utilised in the optimal FACTS allocation
problem
The algorithm for this proposed technique is as follows:
Step 1: Determine mean and standard deviation of yearly load
profile.
Figure 6 Histogram of the hourly optimal TCSC allocations
in a year for the modified IEEE-RTS
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221
www.ietdl.org
5, 10, 11, 12 3, 4 2, 9
6 9 10 11 12 13 14
29 75 24 9 16 35 40
5.8 15 4.8 1.8 3.2 7 8
Commercial Industrial
2, 4, 5 3, 6, 7, 14, 19 10, 13, 15, 18
Step 2: Determine c and k parameters of Weibull distribution
for the yearly wind generation profile.
Step 3: Generate random load and wind generation output by
using the profile characteristic from steps 1 and 2.
Step 4: Run OPF; if it converges, record the random state. If
it does not converge, let the OPF constrain the output from
wind generation and record the state.
Step 5: Repeat steps 3 and 4 for n iterations and check if CV
for random values are less than the pre-specified tolerance
value.
Step 6: Determine the average load and wind generation and
take as an estimated state.
Step 7: Determine optimal TCSC placement for the
estimated state from step 6.
The number of iterations in step 5 can be selected by
considering CV of the random values in step 3. For the
numerical examples in this paper, the initial number of
iterations is empirically chosen to be 100, 500 and 1000. In
this numerical study, it is checked that the chosen number
provides an acceptable CV. The optimal FACTS
allocations for three case studies are shown in Table 7.
From Table 7, by using this proposed technique, the
optimal allocations of FACTS devices for the modified
IEEE-14 bus and the modified IEEE-RTS are given.
However, this technique cannot provide annual optimal
location of the device for the modified RTS-EP as this
network requires compensation only during peak period
with low output of wind generation. Therefore this
proposed technique is not recommended to be used for the
731
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
www.ietdl.org

Table 7 Optimal allocation of TCSC at the estimated system state

Cases MC
100-iteration 500-iteration 1000-iteration
Location Capacity (MVAr) Location Capacity (MVAr) Location Capacity (MVAr)
I 9 70 9 69.42 9 50.28
II 10 69.36 10 70 10 69.98
III 16 69.85 16 67.23 16 66.07

Table 8 Average difference of CV for demand and wind generation output

MC iterations Cases
Modified IEEE-14 bus Modified IEEE-RTS
Demand Wind generation Demand Wind generation
100 0.0662 0.042 0.0511 0.1601
500 0.0651 0.0925 0.0536 0.146
1000 0.0582 0.1825 0.0543 0.1321

network, which usually operates in unconstrained merit
order, that is, one with a centralised dispatch based
predominantly on cost. It is recommended for the network
with usually constrained dispatch operation.
The average values of the CV for demand and wind
generation output from 100, 500 and 1000 iterations
Monte Carlo (MC) for the modified IEEE-14 bus and the
modified IEEE-RTS are given in Table 8.
For the demand, the value of CV is more consistent and as
such the MCS represents well the characteristic of demand.
From Table 8, although the 1000-iteration MC provides
least different values for CV of demand across the two
networks, the 100-iteration MC provides least different
values for wind generation. Therefore higher MC iteration
does not always provide better performance.
For the random wind generation output, the difference
between CV of the data and the CV of the randomly
generated value cannot be used to consider whether the
MC provides a good estimation. As sometimes the random
output of wind generation causes the OPF to fail to converge,
the recorded wind generation which is used to determine the
estimated state is determined from the OPF. However, in
this case the proposed technique does provide the
optimal placements of FACTS device for both test cases II
and III.

Figure 7 Histogram of the optimal TCSC allocation for the Figure 8 Histogram of the optimal TCSC allocation for the
modified IEEE 14-bus test system, determined by using modified IEEE-RTS, determined by using the MCS-based
the MCS-based technique with criterion 1 technique with criterion 1

732 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725– 735
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221

Figure 9 Convergence of CV for the optimal TCSC allocation
a For modified IEEE-14 bus test system
b For modified IEEE-RTS, determined by using the MCS-based technique with stopping criterion 1
5.2 MCS for estimated optimal location
of FACTS devices
The algorithm for this proposed technique is as follows:
Step 1: Input p.d.f. of demand at each bus and wind
generation output;
Step 2: Generate random demand and wind generation
output;
Step 3: Determine the optimal location and rating of the
FACTS device for the random state;
Step 4: If the OPF of a random state does not converge for
every trial of FACTS device location and rating within
a specified maximum generation of the optimisation
technique, ignore this state and repeat step 1 to step 3 again;
Step 5: Repeat steps 1 – 4 until stopping criterion is met.
Figure 10 Histogram of the optimal TCSC allocation for the
modified IEEE-14 bus test system, determined by using the
MCS-based technique with criterion 2
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221
www.ietdl.org
Alternatives of stopping criteria are:
Criterion 1. The number of simulations reaches a target value.
Criterion 2. The number of identical solutions (i.e. same
location) reaches a target value.
By using RUFA-EL with stopping criterion 1, a possible
target can be that the acceptable CV is achieved from the
random states in step 2. For this numerical example, the
target number of simulations is set to be 100. It is found
that in these case studies a value of 100 provides an
acceptable CV. The number of solutions found for each
location is shown in Fig. 7 for the modified IEEE 14-bus
test system and in Fig. 8 for the modified IEEE-RTS. The
most frequently found solutions for both the test cases are
the same as the solutions found for the corresponding cases
in Section 4. Similar to the RUFA-ES, the RUFA-EL
technique proposed in this paper is not recommended for
networks with largely unconstrained operation.
Convergence of CV for the estimated location of the TCSC
using criterion 1 is given in Fig. 9a for the modified IEEE-14
Figure 11 Histogram of the optimal TCSC allocation for the
modified IEEE-RTS, determined by using the MCS-based
technique with criterion 2
733
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
www.ietdl.org
Figure 12 Convergence of CV for the optimal TCSC allocation
a For modified IEEE-14 bus test system
b For modified IEEE-RTS, determined by using the MCS-based technique with criterion 2
bus test system and in Fig. 9b for the modified IEEE-RTS.
The convergence shows that the number of MCS iterations
is acceptable. Tolerance for convergence is 0.0001. By using
RUFA-EL with stopping criterion 2, a target number of
identical solutions for the FACTS location is initially set to
be 50. When the target is reached, CVs of the random
values are checked for acceptability. If not acceptable, the
target number will be increased. However, for these case
studies the CVs are found to be acceptable when the
frequency of the most frequently found solution reaches 50.
The simulation results for the modified IEEE14-bus test
system and for the modified IEEE-RTS are shown in
Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
The optimal locations for both test systems obtained using
these proposed techniques are the same and are about the
same as those found in Section 4. Convergence of CV for
the estimated location of the TCSC by using criterion 2 is
given in Fig. 12a for the modified IEEE-14 bus test
system and in Fig. 12b for the modified IEEE-RTS. The
convergence shows that the number of MCS iterations is
acceptable. Tolerance for convergence is 0.0001. From the
tests, these proposed techniques can provide optimal
allocations of FACTS devices for the considered test cases.
6 Conclusions
The increasing deployment renewable generation makes the
problem of optimal placements FACTS devices in
transmission networks more challenging. The original
contribution of this paper is to propose two techniques for
determination of the optimal placement of FACTS devices
under uncertainty. Furthermore, the paper has shown that
for networks with renewable generation the system state
which must be examined to determine optimal FACTS
device location is not necessarily the system demand peak.
This paper examines the system state which should be used
when determining the optimal location of FACTS device for
networks including renewable generation. For networks
734
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010
usually operated under constrained dispatch, the studies on
test networks show that a FACTS device gives benefit not
only when the demand is at peak or near peak but also at
all demand levels. Optimal placement of the device is
determined for every hour in a year, and it is found that
the operation of FACTS device at the most frequently
found location gives higher benefit than at the optimal
location found for peak demand. This conclusion is for
networks not operated with constrained dispatch which is
common in practice.
Techniques based on MCS are proposed to avoid
calculation for every possible state of the system in the
optimal FACTS allocation problem. The RUFA-ES
technique first estimates the system state which should be
used and the RUFA-EL technique is then used to estimate
the placement. It is found that the solution obtained by
using these techniques is the solution that gives the highest
benefit in comparison to the uncompensated case.
7 References
[1] FULDNER A.H.: ‘Upgrading transmission capacity for
wholesale electric power trade’, a feature article [Online].
Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/
feat_trans_capacity/w_sale.html, accessed 2010
[2] DE OLIVEIRA E.J., MARANGON J.W., LIMA , DE ALMEIDA K.C.:
‘Allocation of FACTS devices in hydrothermal systems’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2000, 15, (1), pp. 276 – 282
[3] GITIZADEH M. , KALANTAR M.: ‘A new approach for
congestion management via optimal location of FACTS
devices in deregulated power systems’. Third Int. Conf.
Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and Power
Technologies, 6 – 9 April 2008, pp. 1592– 1597
[4] MORI H., MAEDA Y.: ‘A hybrid meta-heuristic method for
optimal allocation of UPFCs’. IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits
and Systems, 24 – 27 May 2009, pp. 1705– 1708
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725– 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221

[5] HASHEMZADEH H., HOSSEINI S.H. : ‘Locating series
FACTS devices using line outage sensitivity factors and
particle swarm optimization for congestion management’.
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 26 – 30
July 2009
[6] GERBEX S., CHERKAOUI R., GURMOND A.J.: ‘Optimal location of
multi-type FACTS devices in a power system by means of
genetic algorithms’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2001, 16, (3),
pp. 537– 544
[7] RASHED G.I. , SHAHEEN H.I. , CHENG S.J.: ‘Evolutionary
optimization techniques for optimal location and
parameter settings of TCSC under single line contingency’.
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 20–24 July
2008
[8] STORN R., PRICE K. : ‘Differential evolution – a simple
and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces’, J. Glob. Optimisation, 1997, 11, (4),
pp. 341– 359
[9] Department of Energy and Climate Change, Digest of
UK Energy Statistics, DECC, London, 2009
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 725 – 735
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2009.0221
www.ietdl.org
[10] LIE T.T., DENG W.: ‘Optimal flexible AC transmission system
(FACTS) devices allocation’, Electr. Power Energy Syst., 1997,
19, (2), pp. 125– 134
[11] BILLINTON R., LI W.: ‘Reliability assessment of electric
power systems using Monte Carlo methods’ (Plenum
Press, New York and London, 1994)
[12] CELIK A.N.: ‘Energy output estimation for small-scale wind
power generators using Weibull-representative wind data’,
J. Wind Engng. Ind. Aerodyn., 2003, 91, pp. 693–707
[13] Power systems test case archive – UWEE- [Online].
Available at: http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/
pstca/, accessed 2010
[14] ZIMMERMAN R.D. , MURILLO-SÁNCHEZ C.E., GAN D. :
‘MATPOWER: A MATLAB power system simulation
package’, [Online]. Available at: http://www.pserc.cornell.
edu/matpower/, accessed 2009
[15] BILLINTON R., KUMAR S., CHOWDHURY N., ET AL .: ‘A reliability
test system for educational purposes – basic data’, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 1989, 4, (3), pp. 1238 – 1244
735
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010