To further analyse the performance of the proposed method, the results obtained are compared with those reported in [39]. The authors in [39] have adopted a sensitivity loss method in which the line having most positive loss sensitivity factor is selected to place TCSC for managing congestion.
However, the results show that placement of TCSC in line-44 having most positive loss sensitivity factor does not alleviate congestion from the system. Therefore, the authors have selected another bus and this process is repeated until the system is relieved from congestion. Finally, the congestion is alleviated by placing TCSC in line-38 which is ranked twelfth in location priority as shown in Table 7. Thus, the 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 7. Also, the potential locations obtained with the proposed method are ranked very low in location priority in [39] as shown in Table 8. 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 9. Thus the proposed method gives more optimal location for TCSC as compared to the method reported in [39].
Table 7 Result comparison for 33-bus Indian network