## 4 Results and Discussion
### Scenario I: Balanced and Distorted Source Voltage
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Performance**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Load A**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Load B**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Phase \(a\)** & **Phase \(b\)** & **Phase \(c\)** & **Phase \(a\)** & **Phase \(b\)** & **Phase \(c\)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Before installing SAPF} \\ THD (\%) & 34.46 & 18.60 & 45.46 & 35.29 & 123.90 & 33.65 \\ Phase difference (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 13.90 & 13.10 & 12.20 & 10.40 & 10.10 & 9.00 \\ PF & 0.917 & 0.957 & 0.889 & 0.927 & 0.618 & 0.936 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{After installing SAPF (controlled by enhanced-ADALINE algorithm)} \\ THD (\%) & 1.29 & 1.01 & 1.49 & 1.72 & 2.59 & 2.12 \\ Phase difference (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.30 & 0.30 & 0.50 & 0.40 & 0.20 & 0.90 \\ PF & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{After installing SAPF (controlled by STF-dq0 algorithm) [22]} \\ THD (\%) & 1.66 & 1.50 & 2.01 & 1.90 & 3.41 & 2.55 \\ Phase difference (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.40 & 0.30 & 0.60 & 0.50 & 0.30 & 1.10 \\ PF & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 & 0.999 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of performance parameters demonstrated by the enhanced-ADALINE and STF-dq0 algorithms under Scenario I.  
Figure 7: Simulation result obtained under Scenario I, showing the magnitude (mean value) of fundamental load current extracted by the enhanced-ADALINE algorithm with and without integrating Averaging function: (**a**) Load A and (**b**) Load B.  
Figure 8: Simulation results obtained under Scenario I for Load A, showing source voltage \(v_{\text{Salc}}\), load current \(i_{\text{Lake}}\), injection current \(i_{\text{inj}abc}\), source current \(i_{\text{Salc}}\), and neutral current before and after mitigation, demonstrated by SAPF while applying the (**a**) enhanced-ADALINE and (**b**) STF-dq0 algorithms. Figure 9: Simulation result obtained under Scenario I for Load A, showing the overall dc-link voltage \(V_{dc}\), and individual voltage of each split capacitor \(V_{dc1}\) and \(V_{dc2}\), demonstrated by SAPF while applying the enhanced-ADALINE algorithm. Figure 11: Simulation result obtained under Scenario I for Load B, showing the overall dc-link voltage \(V_{dc}\), and individual voltage of each split capacitor \(V_{dc1}\) and \(V_{dc2}\), demonstrated by SAPF while applying the enhanced-ADALINE algorithm. Figure 10: Simulation results obtained under Scenario I for Load B, showing source voltage \(v_{Salc}\), load current \(i_{Lalc}\), injection current \(i_{injalc}\), source current \(i_{Salc}\), and neutral current before and after mitigation, demonstrated by SAPF while applying the (**a**) enhanced-ADALINE and (**b**) STF-dq0 algorithms. In the context of SAPF, other than its mitigation performance, it is also crucial to make sure that its dc-link voltage is correctly regulated. Figures 9 and 11 provide the related results. From both figures, SAPF controlled by the enhanced-ADALINE algorithm is able to continuously maintain its dc-link voltage \(V_{dc}\) at the desired voltage level (880 V). Similarly, the individual voltage across each split capacitor \(V_{dc1}\) and \(V_{dc2}\), are equally maintained at the desired voltage level (440 V), i.e., half the value of the total dc-link voltage. Similar findings can be observed for Loads A and B. Hence, from all the results presented in this category, it can be confirmed that the enhanced-ADALINE algorithm is able to correctly manage operation of SAPF under Scenario I.