To further analyse the performance of the proposed method, the results obtained are compared with those obtained with the method reported in [39]. With the loss sensitivity method reported in [39], the results show that placement of TCSC in line-14 having most positive loss sensitivity factor does not alleviate congestion from the system. Therefore, another bus is selected and this process is repeated until the system is relieved from congestion. Finally, the congestion is alleviated by placing TCSC in line-106 which is ranked thirty-third in location priority as shown in Table 13. While the highest priority ranked location of TCSC for management of congestion with the proposed method is ranked thirty-fifth according to the method in [39]. Thus, the loss sensitivity method consumes a lot of time in order to find the optimal location of TCSC. While in this paper, the optimal location is found within no time as the congestion is managed by placing the TCSC in line which is ranked first in location priority. The TCSC placement at other lower ranked locations found with the proposed method also manages congestion effectively as shown in Table 10. Also, the potential locations obtained with the proposed method are ranked very low in location priority in [39] as shown in Table 14. Besides this, the minimum installation cost of TCSC evaluated with the proposed method is 155.14 $/KVAR which is lower than that reported in [39] as shown in Table 15. Thus the proposed method gives more optimal location for TCSC as compared to the method reported in [39].
Table 13 Result comparison for IEEE 118-bus system