4.7 Article

An improved Grey Wolf algorithm for optimal placement of unified power flow controller

Journal

ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE
Volume 173, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2022.103187

Keywords

UPFC; FACTS; Optimal flowcontrol; Optimization; Power quality; Cost function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a new algorithm for optimal placement of UPFC based on the Grey Wolf Optimization (GW-PUE) algorithm. By considering different objective functions, the algorithm minimizes power loss, voltage profile deviation, and UPFC cost. Experimental results show that the GW-PUE method outperforms existing methods in terms of computation time on different bus systems.
Most crucial techniques for power system operation as well as control is Optimal Power Flow (OPF) that es-tablishes the lowest operating costs and keeps the control variables within safe ranges. Furthermore, bus voltage and power flow across a power system are controlled by a device called a Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) and it is one of the most promising Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) devices for load flow control. Due to the necessary adjustments to take into account the UPFC characteristics, solving optimal power flow (OPF) problems with UPFC is a crucial and challenging task. Hence, this work intends to introduce a new Grey Wolf with Populace-based Update Evaluation (GW-PUE) algorithm for optimal placement of UPFC to achieve OPF. Different objective functions like minimization of power loss, voltage profile deviation and UPFC cost are con-sideredfor solving the placement problem. Moreover, the adoptedapproach is an improved form of the traditional Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO).At last, the adopted model is tested on the standard IEEE 5, IEEE 14 as well as IEEE 30 bus system. The performance of the suggested work is contrasted with extant methods in terms ofvarious measures. Especially, thecomputation time of the adopted GW-PUE method in IEEE 5 bus system is 59.61%, 14.85%, 1.33%, and 16.29% higher than the existing FF-CS, BBO, FF, and MSSA methods, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available