This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 1
Generic Model Structures for Simulating Static
Var Systems in Power System StudiesA WECC
Task Force Effort
Pouyan Pourbeik, Fellow, IEEE, Dan J. Sullivan, Senior Member, IEEE, Anders Bostrm, Member, IEEE,
Juan Sanchez-Gasca, Fellow, IEEE, Yuriy Kazachkov, Senior Member, IEEE, Janet Kowalski, Member, IEEE,
Armando Salazar, Member, IEEE, Andrew Meyer, Member, IEEE, Ronnie Lau, Donald Davies, and
Eric Allen, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractThis paper describes three models developed through
the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) SVC Task
Force, to represent static Var systems (SVS) for power-ow and
time-domain stability simulations. The goal was to develop a set of
model structures that are generic, and can be easily parameterized
to represent a variety of SVS systems. The term generic is used to
imply a model structure that is not specic to a given vendor or
equipment, and that is non-proprietary and public. These models
have been implemented by several software vendors, and may soon
be adopted by others. These models offer: 1) a suitable non-pro-
prietary, not vendor specic set of models that can be used to eval-
uate SVS solution options for planning studies, and 2) the means to
move away from the proliferation of user-written models that are
becoming hard to manage in large interconnected power system
models such as the WECC. The dissemination of the models and
modeling documentation helps provide guidance to power system
planners and operators about the latest SVS technologies and their
application.
Index TermsModeling of SVC, STATCOM, static Var compen-
sator, static Var system.
I. INTRODUCTION
T
HIS paper reports the nal result of the work of the SVC
Task Force (TF) of WECCs Modeling and Validation
Working Group [16]. This TF was formed with the mission of
Manuscript received August 14, 2011; revised September 10, 2011 and Oc-
tober 31, 2011; accepted December 03, 2011. Paper no. TPWRS-00772-2011.
P. Pourbeik is with EPRI, Knoxville, TN 37932 USA (e-mail: pouyan@ieee.
org).
D. J. Sullivan is with Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc., Power
Systems Engineering Services, Warrendale, PA 15086 USA (e-mail: dan.
sullivan@meppi.com).
A. Bostrm is with ABB, Vasteras, Sweden (e-mail: anders.x.bostrom@se.
abb.com).
J. Sanchez-Gasca is with GE, GE Power Systems Energy Consulting, Sch-
enectady, NY 12345 USA (e-mail: juan.sanchez@ps.ge.com).
Y. Kazachkov is with Siemens PTI, Schenectady, NY 12345 USA (e-mail:
yuriy.kazachkov@siemens.com).
J. Kowalski and A. Salazar are with SCE, Rosemead, CA91770 USA(e-mail:
janet.kowalski@sce.com; Armando.Salazar@sce.com).
A. Meyer is with TEP, Tucson, AZ 85702 USA (e-mail: ameyer@tep.com).
R. Lau is with PG&E, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA (e-mail: prl6@pge.
com).
D. Davies is with WECC, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 USA (e-mail:
donald@wecc.biz).
E. Allen is with NERC, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA (e-mail: eric.allen@nerc.
net).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2179322
developing new and improved models for power-ow and dy-
namic representation of static Var systems (SVS) in positive-se-
quence simulation programs with a focus on generic, non-pro-
prietary models. An SVS is dened as a combination of dis-
cretely and continuously switched Var sources that are oper-
ated in a coordinated fashion by an automated control system.
This includes static Var compensators (SVCs) and static com-
pensators (STATCOMs). The models should be suitable for typ-
ical transmission planning studies. Power-ow models should
be suitable for both contingency and post-transient analyses.
Dynamic models should be valid for phenomena occurring in
a timeframe of cycles to many minutes, with dynamic modes
in the range of 0.1 to 10 Hz, and simulated with a time step no
smaller than 1/4 cycle.
In all modeling efforts, there must always be a balance be-
tween detail and exibility. The goal of the work was to develop
generic, non-proprietary models that are exible enough for use
in modeling existing facilities and newly proposed modern SVS.
It is not possible for such a model to be able to cater to every con-
ceivable conguration of equipment and control strategy. Thus,
some additional user-written supplemental controls may be nec-
essary in rare cases to augment the models developed. Flexi-
bility is provided for adding such supplemental modeling code
(e.g., an input for injecting a stabilizing signal from a supple-
mental power oscillation damper model). It is certain that fu-
ture augmentations may be needed. For example, this work has
built upon the well-established work of previous groups, such
as those reported in [12] and [13].
The dynamic models were validated with several recorded
digital fault recorder (DFR) traces from actual static Var system
installations.
The models developed here are based on previous work
[1][3] and [4]. The code from these sources has been modied
to incorporate a few extra features that were discussed and
suggested during the course of TF meetings, [5][7], in order to
make the models more generic. Additional, pertinent references
are [8][10]. Modeling of SVSs that employ voltage-based
switching of mechanically switched shunts (MSSs) [9] can also
be achieved through the use of auxiliary dynamic models.
II. MODELS
The models developed are intended primarily for power
system simulation studies in positive-sequence stability pro-
grams. There are three types of SVS modeled: 1) TCR based
SVSin this case the core device is an SVC with a thyristor
controlled reactor (TCR) together with lter banks (FC) and
thyristor switched capacitors (TSC)this is a continuously
0885-8950/$31.00 2012 IEEE
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 1. Functioning of the slow-susceptance regulator.
controlled device; 2) TSC/TSR based SVSin this case the
device has only TSC/TSR or just TSC branches in the SVC,
the device is by nature discretely controlled [4]; or 3) VSC
based SVSin this case the core power electronic device is a
voltage source converter (VSC) the VSC static-compensator
is typically referred to as a STATCOM [12][14].
A. Time-Domain Dynamic Models
The approach was to make all three dynamic models as
consistent as possible. The following was modeled: 1) the auto-
matic voltage regulator (AVR), which is a proportional-integral
controller;
1
2) the automated and coordinated switching logic
for MSSs (Fig. 7 shows the ow chart for the MSS switching
logic.); 3) the slow-susceptance regulator (or slow-current
regulator for STATCOM), if used; 4) deadband control, if used;
5) SVS slope/droop (allowing for non-linear droop); 6) SVC
limits, over- and under-voltage strategy and voltage trip set
points [1], [16]; 7) current limits, protection and trip points
for the STATCOM based SVS; and 8) any short-term rating
capability on the power electronic device (SVC or STATCOM).
A brief explanation of the coordinated-MSS switching and
slow-susceptance regulator is needed. The objective of both
functions is to reduce the output of the SVC to keep the fast,
smoothly controlled, reactive output of the SVC in reserve.
Refer to Fig. 1. The left side of the gure shows the dynamic
model of the slow-susceptance regulator. This regulator acts by
comparing the actual susceptance (output) of the SVC to the
given reference (single value), or a range of values (
to ). If the susceptance (B) lies in this range (or at
the reference), no control action is initiated. If B is outside
the range, then the voltage schedule (reference) of the SVC is
slowly (over many tens of seconds to minutes) biased by a pro-
portional-integral regulator until the SVC output susceptance
(B) enters within the desired range. The right side of Fig. 1
illustrates the actions of the slow-susceptance regulator when
coordinated with the switching of an external shunt device.
Consider the SVC at a steady-state operating condition (1).
At this point the bus voltage is at the scheduled voltage and
within both the B-limits ( ). Now let
us assume a signicant event occurs. This will push the SVC
output to point (2) to try to maintain the bus voltage. If
1
As explained in [1], an integral AVR is most common, and derivative control
is rarely, if ever, used.
2
MSS switching typically has two levels one for fast switching presented in
this example and one for slow switching for steady-state regulation, all these
functions need to be coordinated (e.g., see [1]).
Fig. 2. Measured and simulated susceptance (B) and reactive power output (Q)
response of a transmission SVC installation; SVC number 1. The response is to
a delayed clearing of a remote three-phase transmission fault.
Fig. 3. Measured and simulated susceptance (B) and reactive power output (Q)
response of a transmission SVC installation; SVC number 2. The response is to
a balanced three-phase voltage dip resulting from a remote disturbance.
Fig. 4. Measured and simulated susceptance (B) and reactive power output (Q)
response of a transmission SVC installation; SVC number 2. The response is to
a single-line to ground fault. The model parameters used as the same in both
this and Fig. 3.
the SVC is controlling local shunt capacitors (MSCs), it will
quickly switch in a shunt to reduce its output and take it to
point (3).
2
At point (3), however, the SVC is still outside of
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
POURBEIK et al.: GENERIC MODEL STRUCTURES FOR SIMULATING STATIC VAR SYSTEMS IN POWER SYSTEM STUDIESA WECC TASK FORCE EFFORT 3
Fig. 5. Measured and simulated susceptance (B) and reactive power output (Q)
response of a transmission SVC installation; SVC number 3. The response is to
a near-by transmission fault that initiated as a phase-to-phase fault, which was
normally cleared, and then the line automatically reclosed back into the fault,
which turned into a three-phase fault and was nally cleared.
Fig. 6. Measured and simulated reactive current (I) and reactive power output
(Q) response of a transmission STATCOM installation to a remote transmission
fault. The device has a deadband, which was simulated.
the band. Thus, the slow-susceptance reg-
ulator now acts to slowly bring the SVC output to point (4),
back inside the shaded box, by allowing the SVC reference
voltage to be slightly biased by the slow susceptance regulator
action and thus lowering the bus voltage a small amount (typi-
cally 1% or less). The voltage is never allowed to go outside of
, which are operator set limits (e.g., 1.02
to 0.98 pu). All this achieves voltage stability and regulation
while also helping to maintain reactive power reserves.
The TCR based SVC can be viewed as a continuously con-
trolled susceptance, while the STATCOMis a controlled voltage
source. For positive-sequence stability modeling, both are mod-
eled as current injections.
It was decided, by group consensus, that the following items
are not pertinent for modeling in large power system stability
studies, and not included in the generic models:
The TCR and TSC current limitsfor large transmission
SVCs, the equipment typically will be specied to be able
to deliver its full reactive capability throughout the range of
steady-state continuous system voltage, typically 0.9 pu to
1.10 pu. Thus, it is not expected that these current limiting
devices will come into play for power system studies.
Secondary voltage limitationthe secondary voltage
on the low-voltage side of the SVC step-up transformer
may be limited by limiting the capacitive output of the
SVC. The equipment typically will be specied to be
able to deliver their full reactive capability throughout the
range of steady-state continuous system voltage (primary
voltage)typically, 0.9 pu to 1.10 pu. Thus, it is not
expected that this limiting control will come into play
for power system studies. This is not necessarily true for
STATCOMs due to the more tightly controlled current
limits. Thus, an emulation of this behavior is provided for
in the STATCOM model [16]. Dynamically controllable
limits are allowed in the model (e.g., see Fig. 7), so the
user may add secondary voltage (and current) limitation
controls as supplemental user-written controls if the user
wishes to do so. This is highly discouraged since the intent
of the models presented here is for planning studies. Mod-
eling the secondary voltage limitation requires in-depth
understanding of the actual equipment design and con-
trols, which would not be available to the average user
or to individuals performing planning studies for a future
planned device. Even for existing in-service devices, the
simple models here can adequately capture the equipment
behavior (see validation cases below).
Gain schedulerthis is typically some form of controller
that adapts the open loop gain of the SVC to the particular
system conditions. For example, if the system conditions
become quite weak, thereby resulting in the initiation of os-
cillations in the SVC voltage control loop, the gain sched-
uler will sense this and reduce the voltage regular gain until
the oscillations are suppressed. This is too much detail for
typical power system studies. The user should choose an
appropriate gain to ensure stable closed loop operation for
the given network conditions being studied.
Many other controls and details (cooling system controls, etc.)
that have little or no bearing for system dynamic performance
studies were also not modeled.
The nal generic dynamic SVS models are shown in
Figs. 79. The parameter lists are provided in Appendix A.
B. Steady-State Power-Flow Models
For power-ow analysis, variable shunt models were devel-
oped that either vary continuously ( and ) or
discretely ( ), and are able to automatically switch MSSs
modeled as switched-shunts. These models also link directly to
the time-domain dynamic models. The SVS slope and slow-sus-
ceptance regulator are also emulated in power-ow. The main
new aspects of the power-ow models are the ability to emu-
late coordinate MSSs switching and to emulate the slow-sus-
ceptance regulator for the model.
Fig. 10 shows the MSS switching logic as implemented in
power-ow. Comparing Figs. 10 and 7, a key difference can
be seen between the power-ow and time-domain dynamic
model implementation of the MSS switching logic. Since in
power-ow analysis there is no explicit representation of time
the switching is based on a single range of susceptance thresh-
olds, with no time dependence. That is, if the SVC portion
of the SVS goes outside of the range to ,
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 7. Block diagram of the TCR based generic SVS model and the MSSs switching logic as implemented in the dynamic model. For the sake of simplicity, the
MSS logic shown here is based on switching of shunt capacitors, the actual model allows for both switching of shunt capacitors and reactors.
then the appropriate number of MSSs are switched to bring it
back within this range, provided the MSSs are available for
switching.
The algorithm for the slow-susceptance regulator, in
power-ow, is based on that developed in [2]. The following six
attributes/parameters are associated with the SVS power-ow
model:
one parameter to turn this function on or off;
two parameters ( and ) to dene the
range of B within which the SVC output is to be kept in
steady-state. This is similar to the MSS switching logic;
two parameters ( and ) to dene the
range of allowable voltage reference change by the SVC
to keep the B output within (see expla-
nation of slow-susceptance regulator action in the previous
section, as related to Fig. 1); and
a parameter ( ) for the user to specify the voltage gra-
dient as a function of Vars at the SVS bus, that is, .
This can be estimated from the short-circuit impedance at
the bus. Namely, if the positive sequence, three-phase short
circuit impedance at the SVS transmission bus is Z pu, then
by Ohms Law one can see that is approximately
equal to Z pu. The reason for this parameter is explained
below in the algorithm.
The slow-susceptance algorithm is as follows:
First solve the power-ow case, for one iteration, to hold the
current bus scheduled voltage (including slope). Then set the
variable .
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
POURBEIK et al.: GENERIC MODEL STRUCTURES FOR SIMULATING STATIC VAR SYSTEMS IN POWER SYSTEM STUDIESA WECC TASK FORCE EFFORT 5
Fig. 8. Block diagram of the TSC/TSR based generic SVS model.
If (the slow susceptance regulator is in-service)
If
Take no action
else
Lower/raise (the controlled bus voltage reference)
until SVC output is between . To
lower/raise the the following algorithm is used:
From the input by the user we have .
Now change vref as follows:
If
elseif
end
must ALWAYS be between and
, i.e., if it hits one of these limits then stop.
end
end
Iterate through this algorithm until convergence.
It should be emphasized that the above power-ow algorithm
is a simplied representation of the slow-susceptance regulator
for steady-state analysis. The nal steady-state equilibrium con-
dition of an SVC at the end of a dynamics simulation will not
necessarily be the same as that obtained by the power-ow so-
lution. One reason for this is the action of the MSS switching,
which may occur due to, for example, a nearby fault. This ac-
tion, i.e., MSS switching due to a fault and its effects, cannot be
modeled in power-ow but can be modeled in dynamics. This
is explained in the previous subsection in relation to Fig. 1.
Further details of the power-ow models are presented in
[16].
III. MODEL VALIDATION
Data from digital fault recorders (DFRs) built into the SVS
systems was extracted from several SVS installations and used
to validate the and models. The data was pro-
vided by several members of the task force for four different
SVS installations in North America. EPRI performed the vali-
dation work using a technique similar to that described in [17].
By feeding the measured transmission system voltage into the
model, and tting the susceptance and reactive power response,
the model was validated. The controller gains were optimized
to achieve the necessary ts. In at least one of these cases, we
were able to compare the optimized gains with the actual gain
settings in the SVC controls; and the optimized values matched
closely the actual gain settings. Five validation cases are shown
here, four with the model using data from three dif-
ferent SVC installations, and one with the model for a
STATCOM installation.
Figs. 25 show the validation cases for the SVC installa-
tions. Fig. 2 shows the response of an SVC (SVC number 1)
to a remote three-phase transmission fault that resulted in de-
layed clearing. The interesting aspect of this event is that one
can clearly see the SVC go into its under-voltage strategy for a
brief period of tens of milliseconds upon fault inception, and it
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 9. Block diagram of the VSC based generic SVS model.
is seen that the model can match this behavior quite well. Fig. 3
shows the response of another SVC installation (SVC number
2) to a balanced (three-phase) voltage dip that occurred at the
SVC site due to a remote eventthe exact nature of the re-
mote event is not known. Fig. 4 shows the response of SVC
number 2 to a different event, a remote single-line to ground
fault. The model parameters used for the simulations in Figs. 3
and 4 were the same, which gives greater condence in the va-
lidity of the model since it is able to reproduce the response
of the SVC to two unrelated events. Fig. 5 shows the response
of a third SVC, SVC number 3, to an unbalanced phase-to-
phase fault, which subsequently resulted in automatic reclosing
of the line back into the fault and eventual clearing of the nearby
transmission line. Figs. 4 and 5 are interesting because both
were events, for two different SVC installations, that were un-
balanced faults. This shows that the positive-sequence models
presented here are able to adequately emulate the positive-se-
quence behavior of the equipment for unbalanced disturbances
for power system stability studies.
3
This is because the actual
SVC controls have been designed to act on the positive se-
quence component of voltage, since these installations are for
the purposes of maintaining transmission system voltage regu-
lation and stability. SVCs can be designed for regulating indi-
vidual phase voltages, but for bulk transmission voltage regula-
tion and support applications this is not common.
3
From an insulation coordination point of view and investigation of electro-
magnetic transients, such unbalanced (and even balanced) phenomena should
be studied in electromagnetic transient simulation software programs.
Fig. 6 shows a validation case for a VSC based SVS using
model . In this case the event was a balanced
three-phase voltage dipthe details of the event are not ex-
actly known. The installation is a STATCOM installed at the
transmission level.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
This paper summarizes the recently developed and imple-
mented models for SVS. There are three main types of SVS1)
an SVS based on a TCR where continuous (and smooth) vernier
control is achieved, 2) an SVS based on TSC/TSR where dis-
crete control is achieved, and 3) an SVS where continuous (and
smooth) vernier control is achieved with a VSC. All are being
represented as complete SVS systemsthat is, a core power
electronic based device that is automatically coordinated with
mechanically switched shunt devices.
The models have been adopted by two commercial power
system software packages, and hopefully will be implemented
in other commercial tools as well. The models have also been
validated against several actual SVS installations based on
recorder digital fault recorder response of these facilities to
nearby power system disturbances, such as faults and genera-
tion tripping events that resulted in voltage uctuations. This
established the validity of using these models for power system
stability studies.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
POURBEIK et al.: GENERIC MODEL STRUCTURES FOR SIMULATING STATIC VAR SYSTEMS IN POWER SYSTEM STUDIESA WECC TASK FORCE EFFORT 7
Fig. 10. MSS switching logic as implemented in power-ow. For the sake of simplicity, the MSS logic shown here is based on switching of shunt capacitors, the
actual model allows for both switching of shunt capacitors and reactors.
Fig. 11. Switching from one susceptance level to the next.
APPENDIX
PARAMETER LIST
A. SVSMO1 Dynamic Model Parameters
The following is a list of the parameters of . Each pa-
rameter is explained and a typical range of values provided in
parenthesis. Where a typical range is not provided this means
that the value is based on specications, design and tuning. All
typical values provided are simply for guidance; they do not rep-
resent all possible values or appropriate settings. The model is
per unitized on the systemMVAbase. So for example, the Bmax
for a 240 Mvar/-100 Mvar SVC would be 2.4 pu on 100-MVA
base.
Parm. Description (typical range of values/units).
vrefmax Maximum voltage reference setpoint
(1.041.06 pu).
vrefmin Minimum voltage reference setpoint
(0.991.01 pu).
UVSBmax Maximum capacitive limit of the SVC during
undervoltage strategy (pu).
UV1 Under voltage setpoint 1, below which the
SVC output = UVSBmax (pu).
UV2 Under voltage setpoint 2, below which SVC
output forced to Bmin (pu).
UVT Under voltage trip setpoint; SVC will trip if
for UVtm2 sec. (pu).
OV1 Over voltage setpoint 1, above which SVC
output is force to Bmin; also SVC trips if
for OVtm1 sec. (pu).
OV2 Over voltage setpoint 2, SVC will trip if
for OVtm2 sec. (pu).
UVtm1 Under voltage time 1 (1 to 2 s).
UVtm2 Under voltage trip time (s).
OVtm1 Over voltage trip time 1 (s).
OVtm2 Over voltage trip time 2 (s).
ag1 0no switching of MSS; 1MSS switching
enabled.
ag2 0linear slope; 1non-linear slope (0).
Xc1 Slopenominal linear slope or rst part of
piecewise linear slope (0.010.05 pu/pu).
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Xc2 Second section of piecewise linear slope, if
used (pu/pu).
Xc3 Third section of piecewise linear slope, if used
(pu/pu).
Vup Upper voltage break-point of non-linear slope,
if used (pu).
Vlow Lower voltage break point of non-linear slope,
if used (pu).
Tc1 Lead time constant (0 s).
Tb1 Lag time constant (0.0250.05 s).
Tc2 Lead time constant (0 s).
Tb2 Lag time constant (0 s).
Kpv Voltage regulator proportional gain (0 pu/pu).
Kiv Voltage regulator integral gain (50500
pu/pu.s).
vemax Maximum allowable voltage error (99 pu).
vemin Minimum allowable voltage error (-99 pu).
T2 Firing delay time constant (0.0050.01 s).
Bshrt Short-term maximum capacitive rating (pu).
Bmax Maximum continuous capacitive rating (pu).
Bmin Minimum continuous inductive rating (pu).
Tshrt Short-term rating denite time delay (s).
Kps Proportional gain of slow-susceptance
regulator (0 pu/pu).
Kis Integral gain of slow-susceptance regulator
(0.00050.001 pu/pu.s).
Vrmax Max. allowed slow-susceptance regulator
output (0.050.1 pu).
Vrmin Min. allowed slow-susceptance regulator
output ( 0.05 pu).
Vdbd1 Steady-state voltage deadband; SVC inactive
for Vref-Vdbd1, if
used (pu).
Vdbd2 Inner deadband; i.e., when SVC goes outside
of Vdbd1, it must come back within the range
Vref-Vdbd2 for Tdbd
sec. in order for the SVC to be locked again.
(1/5 to 1/10 of Vdbd1 pu).
Tdbd Denite time deadband delay (0.10.5 s).
PLLdelay PLL delay in recovering if voltage remains
below UV1 for more than UVtm1 sec. (0.1 s).
Eps Small delta added to the susceptance
bandwidth of the slow susceptance regulator
in order to ensure its limits are not exactly
identical to the MSS switching point (0.1
Mvar).
Blcs Large threshold for switching MSS on the
capacitive side (Mvar).
Bscs Small threshold for switching MSS on the
capacitive side (Mvar).
Blis Large threshold for switching MSS on the
inductive side (Mvar).
Bsis Small threshold for switching MSS on the
inductive side (Mvar).
Tmssbrk MSS breaker switching delay (for opening and
closing) (0.050.1 s).
Tdelay1 Denite time delay for larger threshold
switching (0.20.5 s).
Tdelay2 Denite time delay for small threshold
switching (60300 s).
Tout Discharge time for mechanically switched
capacitors (300 s).
The power-ow bus-number, and id of the MSSs is typically
entered in the power-ow record for the SVS.
B. SVSMO2 Dynamic Model Parameters
The list of parameters and per unitization for is
identical to , with two exceptions. First, and
are determined internally by the model, based on the
dened number and size of TSC and TSR branches in the
power-ow case. Secondly, there are two additional parameters
in this model that are related to the discrete switching nature of
the device. These parameters are as follows.
Parm. Description (Typical range of values/units).
dbe Voltage error deadband (0.01 pu)see Fig. 8.
dbb Susceptance deadband (pu) (see Fig. 11 and
associated explanation below).
The software tool should internally calculate the look-up
table, of all possible unique combinations of the TSC/TSR
branches, based on user input of the number and size of
TSC/TSR branches. The action of the hysteretic deadband
( ) can be described by a diagram, as shown in Fig. 11. If the
susceptance output of the SVC is at B1, then as the susceptance
command from the PI regulator changes (pio1) the output of
the SVC stays the same until this command exceed the mid
way point between B1 and the next discrete possible output
point B2 plus . Thus, if and
and , then once the susceptance command goes
above the SVC output goes
immediately to . However, on the way down
there is a hysteretic behavior and the command must go below
the mid-way point by for it to go back to B1, i.e., it must go
below . In this way, by making
the switching point hysteretic (i.e., direction dependant), any
hunting between switching points is prevented. This is an
emulation of the controls and is not intended to be an exact
implementation of any specic control strategy.
C. SVSMO3 Dynamic Model Parameters
Below is a list of all the parameters of the . This
model is per unitized on its own MVA BASE. This was chosen
to be the case as opposed to the and models
because small (10 to 20 MVA) STATCOMs are quite common.
Typical values of parameters, where provided, are for guidance
only; they do not represent all possible values or appropriate
settings.
Parm. Description (typical range of values/units).
MBASE Model MVA base (MVA).
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
POURBEIK et al.: GENERIC MODEL STRUCTURES FOR SIMULATING STATIC VAR SYSTEMS IN POWER SYSTEM STUDIESA WECC TASK FORCE EFFORT 9
Vrefmax Maximum voltage reference setpoint (1.021.05
pu).
Vrefmin Minimum voltage reference setpoint (0.981.01
pu).
Xc0 Constant linear droop/slope (0.010.03 pu/pu).
Tc1 Voltage measurement lead time constant (0 s).
Tb1 Voltage measurement lag time constant
(0.050.1 s).
Kp Voltage regulator proportional gain (0.0 pu/pu).
Ki Voltage regulator integral gain (20200 pu/pu.s).
vemax Voltage error maximum limit (99 pu).
vemin Voltage error minimum limit .
To Firing sequence control delay (0.0010.005 s).
Imax1 Max. continuous current rating (1.00 pu).
dbd Voltage control deadband (0.010.05 pu).
Kdbd Ratio of outer to inner deadband (510).
Tdbd Deadband time (0.10 s).
Kpr Proportional gain for slow-reset control (0.0
pu/pu).
Kir Integral gain for slow-reset control (pu/pu.s).
Idbd Deadband range for slow-reset current controller
(pu).
Vrmax Max. output limit of slow-reset current controller
(0.050.10 pu).
Vrmin Min. output limit of slow-reset current controller
( ).
Ishrt Max. short-term current rating as a multiple of
continuous rating (1.53 pu).
UV1 Voltage at which the STATCOM limit starts to
be reduced linearly (0.50 pu).
UV2 Voltage below which the STATCOM is blocked
(0.20 pu).
OV1 Voltage above which the STATCOM limit
linearly changesup to OV2 (1.10 pu).
OV2 Voltage above which the STATCOM is blocked
(1.20 pu).
Vtrip Voltage above which the STATCOM trips after
Tdelay2 seconds (1.30 pu).
Tdelay1 Short-term rating delay (1.00 s).
Tdelay2 Trip time for (0.08 s).
ecap
Enable or disable MSS
switching.
Iupr Threshold for switching MSS on the capacitive
side (pu).
Ilwr Threshold for switching MSS on the inductive
side (pu).
TdelLC Time delay for switching in a shunt (60120 s).
Tout Discharge time for mechanically switched
capacitors (300 s).
sdelay PLLdelay for recovery after blocking (0.02 s).
I2t I2t limit (pu I squared T thermal limitoptional)
(pu.pu.s).
Reset Reset rate for I2t limit (pu.pu).
hyst Hysteresis for I2t limit (pu).
ag1 = 1 slow reset is on; = 0 slow reset is off. (0).
ag2 = 1 non-linear droop is on; = 0 non-linear droop
is off (0).
Xc1 Non-linear droop slope 1 (pu/pu).
Xc2 Non-linear droop slope 2 (pu/pu).
Xc3 Non-linear droop slope 3 (pu/pu).
V1 Non-linear droop upper voltage (pu).
V2 Non-linear droop lower voltage (pu).
Tc2 Lead time constant (0.0 s).
Tb2 Lag time constant (0.0 s).
Tmssbrk MSS breaker switch delay (for opening and
closing) (0.050.1 s).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank all members and participants
in the WECC SVC TF. The following is a list of the members
at the time of issuing the TF nal report: E. Allen, NERC;
B. Bhargava, SCE (Past SVCTF Convener); A. Bostrom,
ABB; D. Davies, WECC; D. Dickmander, ABB; W. Gu,
ATCO Electric; Y. Kazachkov, Siemens PTI; J. Kowalski,
SCE (SVCTF Convener); R. Lau, PG&E; A. J. Meyer, TEP;
R. Nath, Siemens PTI; P. Pourbeik, EPRI; W. Price, Consultant;
A. Salazar, SCE (SVCTF Secretary); J. Sanchez-Gasca, GE;
B. Sudduth, WECC; D. Sullivan, MEPPI; and S. Williams, S &
C. The authors apologize for any names inadvertently omitted.
The authors also would like to thank the WECC Modeling
and Validation Working Group for establishing this TF, and
the various employer organizations of the TF members who
supported the involvement of their employees in this effort.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Pourbeik, A. Bostrm, and B. Ray, Modeling and application
studies for a modern static VAR system installation, IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 368377, Jan. 2006.
[2] P. Pourbeik, Modeling the Newark SVC, Prepared for PG&E, 2002,
ABB Report Number: 2002-10377-2.R01.2.
[3] P. Pourbeik, Users Manual for ABB STATCOM Model in GE PLSF
and Siemens PTI PSS/E, 2006, ABB Report No. 2006-11241-Rpt4-
Rev2.
[4] Y. Kazachkov, PSSE Dynamic Simulation Model for the Discretely
Controlled SVC, prepared for WECC SVC TF, 2009.
[5] P. Pourbeik, Proposed Generic SVC Model Backed by Experience,
PowerPoint Presentation at WECC SVC TF Meeting on 9/14/07. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.wecc.biz.
[6] D. Sullivan and J. Paserba, Perspective on SVC and STATCOM Mod-
eling for Powerow and Stability Studies, PowerPoint Presentation at
WECC SVC TF Meeting, May 24, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://
www.wecc.biz.
[7] P. Pourbeik, Experience with SVC Modeling and Model Validation,
PowerPoint Presentation at WECC SVC TF Meeting on 5/2/07. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.wecc.biz.
[8] IEEE Special Stability Controls Working Group, Static Var compen-
sator models for power ow and dynamic performance simulation,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 229240, Feb. 1994.
[9] D. Sullivan, J. Paserba, G. Reed, T. Croasdaile, R. Westover, R. Pape,
M. Takeda, S. Yasuda, H. Teramoto, Y. Kono, K. Kuroda, K. Temma,
W. Hall, D. Mahoney, D. Miller, and P. Henry, Voltage control in
Southwest Utah with the St. George static Var system, in Proc. IEEE
PES Power Systems Conf. Expo., 2006.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
[10] D. L. Dickmander, B. H. Thorvaldsson, G. A. Stromberg, D. L. Os-
born, A. E. Poitras, and D. A. Fisher, Control system design and per-
formance verication for the Chester, Maine static VAR compensator,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 14921503, Jul. 1992.
[11] J. Kowalski, I. Vancers, and M. Reynolds, Application of static VAR
compensation on the Southern California Edison system to improve
transmission system capacity and address voltage stability issues part
1. Planning, design and performance criteria considerations, in Proc.
IEEE PES Power Systems Conf. Expo., 2006.
[12] IEEE Power Engineering Society, FACTS Applications, Publication 96
TP 116-0. New York, IEEE Press, 1996.
[13] CIGRE Technical Brochure 25, Static var Compensators, CIGRE Task
Froce 38.01.02. Paris, France, CIGRE, 1986.
[14] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS. New York:
IEEE Press, 1999.
[15] P. Pourbeik, A. Bostrm, E. John, and M. Basu, Operational expe-
riences with SVCs for local and remote disturbances, in Proc. IEEE
Power Systems Conf. Expo., Atlanta, GA, Nov. 1, 2006.
[16] Generic Static Var System Models for the Western Electricity Coordi-
nating Council, WECC SVC TF, Apr. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://
www.wecc.biz.
[17] P. Pourbeik, Automated parameter derivation for power plant models
from system disturbance data, in Proc. IEEE PES General Meeting,
Calgary, AB, Canada, Jul. 2009.
Pouyan Pourbeik (M93SM02F10) is presently with EPRI, Knoxville, TN.
He presently serves as the secretary of the IEEE PES Power System Dynamic
Performance Committee and CIGRE Study Committee C4.
Mr. Pourbeik is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of North
Carolina.
Dan J. Sullivan (M94SM08) is presently with Mitsubishi Electric Power
Products, Warrendale, PA. He holds leadership roles as Secretary of the
IEEE-PES Subcommittee on HV Power Electronics and Secretary of Working
Group and Task Forces involved in Static Var Compensators.
Mr. Sullivan is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Pennsylvania.
Anders Bostrm (M05) is presently with ABB Power Systems FACTS in
Vasteras, Sweden. He has performed numerous system and design studies to
determine SVC size, component rating, and system interaction.
Juan Sanchez-Gasca (F02) is presently with GE Energy in Schenectady, NY.
He currently serves as the Chairman of the IEEE Power System Dynamic Per-
formance Committee.
Yuriy Kazachkov (M92SM94) is presently with Siemens Energy, Inc, Power
Technology International, Schenectady, NY.
Mr. Kazachkov is a senior member of the IEEE Power and Energy Society.
Janet Kowalski (M94) is presently with Southern California Edison (SCE)
Company, Rosemead, CA. She is presently the convener for the WECC SVC
TF.
Ms. Kowalski is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of California
Armando Salazar (M94) is presently with Southern California Edison (SCE)
Company, Rosemead, CA.
Mr. Salazar is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of California and
a member of the IEEE Power and Energy Society.
Andrew Meyer (M79) is presently with Tucson Electric Power Company,
Tucson, AZ.
Mr. Meyer is a past chair of the PESTucson Chapter. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the state of Arizona.
Ronnie Lau is presently with Pacic Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company in
San Francisco, CA.
Mr. Lau is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of California.
Donald Davies is presently with the Western Electricity Coordinating Council,
Salt Lake City, UT, where he is currently Chief Senior Engineer.
Eric Allen (M95SM07) is presently with the North American Electric Reli-
ability Corporation (NERC), Princeton, NJ.
Mr. Allen is currently chair of the IEEE PSRC Working Group H20.