## 6 Simulation Results
### Daily Optimal Dispatches of VVC Devices
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hour**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{DG1}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{DG1}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{DG2}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{WT}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{MCP}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hour**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{Disco}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{DG1}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{DG2}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{P_{WT}^{int}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{_MCP_} \\  & & **(kW)** & **(kW)** & **(kW)** & **(S/kWh)** & & & & **(kW)** & **(kW)** & **(kW)** & **(S/kWh)** \\ \hline
1 & 422.62 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 13 & 4264.6 & 400 & 800 & 442 & 0.06 \\
2 & 76.12 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 14 & 2056.3 & 400 & 1000 & 442 & 0.06 \\
3 & 468.89 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 15 & 260.66 & 400 & 1000 & 442 & 0.06 \\
4 & 626.39 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 16 & 187.89 & 400 & 1000 & 500 & 0.06 \\
5 & 659.85 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 17 & 2008.1 & 400 & 1000 & 500 & 0.06 \\
6 & 691.35 & 300 & 400 & 100 & 0.05 & 18 & 5069.76 & 400 & 1000 & 500 & 0.06 \\
7 & 488.35 & 300 & 400 & 366 & 0.05 & 19 & 5897 & 400 & 1000 & 480 & 0.06 \\
8 & 801.39 & 300 & 400 & 366 & 0.05 & 20 & 5756.23 & 400 & 1000 & 480 & 0.06 \\
9 & 1375.4 & 400 & 800 & 366 & 0.06 & 21 & 4646.8 & 400 & 1000 & 480 & 0.06 \\
10 & 4003.9 & 400 & 800 & 366 & 0.06 & 22 & 2925.01 & 400 & 1000 & 480 & 0.06 \\
11 & 4651.49 & 400 & 800 & 442 & 0.06 & 23 & 598.89 & 400 & 800 & 100 & 0.06 \\
12 & 4758.8 & 400 & 800 & 442 & 0.06 & 24 & 80.12 & 400 & 800 & 100 & 0.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Initial active power schedule. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**DER**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{V_{c,max}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{I_{c,max}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{X}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{Q_{WT}^{min}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{a_{0}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{\rho_{Adj}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{a_{l}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{b_{l}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{x^{max}}\)} \\  & **(p.u.)** & **(p.u.)** & **(p.u.)** & **(kVAr)** & **(S)** & **(S/kWh)** & & \\ \hline WT & 1.4 & 1.24 & 0.2 & \(-\)250 & 0.9 & 0.095 & 10.14 & 0.003 & 50\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Characteristics of the WT. illustrated in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. As seen in Figure 8, the number of operations of C1 and C2 are 12 and 16, respectively, which is higher than the acceptable maximum. Table 7 provides the optimal reactive power dispatch of generation units in case 2. In order to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method based on the Benders decomposition algorithm, Table 8 provides a comparison between the results of cases 1 and 2. From the comparison of results shown in Table 8, it has been observed that despite the limited switching operations included in the Benders decomposition-based proposed method, the total cost decreases to $449.26, compared to $477.761 when no restriction is imposed on the switched devices; this confirms the effectiveness of Benders decomposition. On the other hand, when the limitation on switching operations of control devices is not considered, the active power loss has decreased from 998.134 kW to 954.506 kW. This is due to the fact that an unlimited number of switching operations provides a more flexible control of the power flow to regulate the voltage within its admissible range and to fulfill the operational constraints.