Table 4 A comparative study of the proposed load shedding strategy with the state-of-art
Ref | System undertaken | The efficiency of the load shedding strategy | Overall system frequency drop (in Hz) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[17] | Microgrid (50 Hz) | 98.36% | 48.92 | The system with synchronous and asynchronous generators |
[18] | Microgrid (50 Hz) | 96.82% | 48.8 | Implementation of an adaptive controller to maintain stability. |
[21] | IEEE 14 Bus System (60 Hz) | 94.50% | 59.6 | Load shedding without any supporting device. |
[22] | Power system with interconnected power districts (50 Hz) | 98.20% | 49.72 | Application of smart metering system for emergency shedding |
[23] | Distribution system (Guadeloupean Power System) (50 Hz) | 97.45% | 48.5 | Ultracapacitor storage to support the dynamic frequency. |
[24] | Distribution system (23 bus sample system) (60 Hz) | 98.34% | 59.46 | Super-conducting storage devices compensate the frequency variations until the governor response |
[25] | Distribution System (China Steel Corporation) (60 Hz) | 97.89% | 58.10 | Super magnetic energy storage device to enhance transient stability while shedding the loads |
Proposed Approach | Modified IEEE 13-bus microgrid system (60 Hz) | 99.25% | 58.92 | Three-stage adaptive load shedding strategy supported by battery and D-STATCOM to maintain system stability. |