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