Table  \ref{tab5} shows the power flow in the overloaded line, for (a) without any RAS, (b) RAS with healthy primary leader node and (c) with failed primary leader node and healthy back up node, (d) with the communication at the leader node failing. It is seen from the table that without RAS, there is a overload in the line. However, with the proposed RAS, the overload in the line is alleviated and the flow is within its limits. Case C, which depicts a scenario in which the primary leader node fails, the flow is again well within the limit and is same as Case B. In this case the backup node quickly comes into the action, providing the resiliency to the node failure. For Case D as well, the performance of the RAS action is minimally affected when a communication link fails, only adding more delay to ensure that the link failure isn’t just a dropped packet.
Table \ref{tab5} also shows the round trip time taken for the RAS action for all the four cases. Time taken for the case of link failures is slightly larger than the case where all the nodes and communication links are healthy. This is because, there is some time delay to ensure reliable detection of the cyber failures.