THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOwER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE
CPMPARISON OF UNIFIED POWER FLOW CONTROLLER MODELS FOR
POWER FLOW STUDIES
M. Z. EL-S'adek, A. Ahmed, H. E. Zidan
Electrical EngineeringDepartment
Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University
71518 Assiut, Egypt
Fax.002/088/233255
ABSTRACT
The unified power flow controller (UPFC) is an advanced
member of flexible .AC transmission systems (FACTS)
group. This paper is focused on three techniques for
inclusion of the steady state models of the tJPFC IU power
flow programs. Three models are selected of many available
models for the UPFC and incorporated in a MATLAB power
now program, based on the Newton-Raphson algorithm.
They are: decoupled UPFC model, injection LJPFC model
and comprehensive NR UPFC model. A comparison among
the load flow results using those models has been held to
illustrate the validity, merits and demerits of those UPFC
models at different operation modes. Each of them has
advantages over the other for certain conditions.
Keywonls: Flexible AC Transmission Systems,
FACTS, Unified Power Flow Controllers, UPFC,
Modeling, Steady State Analysis, Newton-Raphson
Power Flow Algorithm, MATLAB.
1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade continuous and fast
improvement of power electronics technology' has
made flexible Ac transmission systems (F ACl S) a
promising concept for power system application. With
the application of FACTS technology, power flow
along transmission lines can be more flexibly
controlled [11~ Among a variety of FACTS controllers,
UPFC is one of the more interesting and potentially
the most versatile. It can provide simultaneous and
independent control of important power system
parameters: line active power flow, line reactive power
flow, line impedances and node voltage [2]. Thereby it
otTers .the necessary functional flexibility for the
combined application of phase angle control with
controlled series and shunt compensation. The UPFC
- 189 ~
(MEPCON'2oo6)
operation mode (terminal voltage regulation. series
compensation, phase shift, or any combination of
them) can be changed from one state to another
without hardware alternetors to adapt to particular
changing system conditions [3]. This feature makes it
a competent device. A mathematical model is required
for investigating the effects of U PFC on power system
a
operation. From summarized literature search. (4]
introduce a steady state UPFC model based on a single
ideal and series voltage source. Reference [5] utilizes
two ideal voltage sources, one in series and one in
parallel to develop a UPFC steady state model. The
steady state model in [6] based upon one ideal series
voltage source and one ideal shunt current source. The
previous models [4,5,6] neglect the series impedance
of the UPFC shunt and series transformer. In reference
[7] each of series and shunt converters of UPFC is
represented by ideal voltage source connected in series
with reactance. Reference [8] represents the series
converter as ideal voltage source in series with
reactance and the shunt voltage source is represented
as current source. Reference [9] as reference [1] but it
take the UPFC transformers resistances in
consideration. References (7], [8] and [9] present
decoupled UPFC model, power injection UPFC model
and comprehensive NR UPFC model. In this paper the
last three techniques are selected and iflcorporated in a
MATLAB power flow program [10]. A comparison
among their results has been held to illustrate the
validity for each of them to represent a steady state
model for UPfC ill its cii.ffer.ent operational modes.
Figure (I) shows the basic circuit arrangement'of the
UPFC where it consists of two switching converters.
These converters are operated from a common de link
provided by a de storage capacitor.
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EAST POWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE
Bu. i Buai
Converter Convere.
2 1
Fig. I: UPFC Basic Arrangement
2. DECOUPLED UPFC MODEL
A sequential UPFC power flow model proposed by
Nabavi-Niaki and Iravani [7J is capable of regulating
the power flow from node i to node j and to regulate
the nodal voltage magnitude at node L In this situation,
assuming a loss free UPFC operation and neglecting
the resistance in the voltage source impedances. the
UPFC and coupling transformers can be modeled by
means of a load at bus i and a generator at bus j. This
is shown in figure (2). The sending end of the UPFC is
transformed into a PO bus. while the receiving end :3
transformed into a PV bus. The active and reactive
power loads in the PO bus are set to the values being
controlled by the UPFC. The voltage magnitude at the
PV bus is set at the value to be controlled by the
UPFC. A standard load flow solution is carried out
with the equivalent model given in figure 2b. After
load flow convergence a set of nonlinear equations is
solved by iteration to compute the UPFC pammeters
La
i.e. (the series voltage source VS<t ser and the shunt
voltage source Vsh La sh) as shown in figure (3),
which represent the single line diagram of the UPFC.
(a)
~-... .1-BuS
~) {~
v,
Fig. 2: UPFC Decoupled Power Flow Model
2. J Drawbacks of Decoupled UPFC Model:
Although this sequential method is simple but it is not
clear from it how the model can be used in'situations
when the UPFC is not controlling the voltage
magnitude. line active power and line reactive power
simultaneously. Moreover since the UPFC parameters
-190-
(MEPCON'2oo6)
are computed after load flow converged. there is no
way of knowing during this iterative process whether
or not the UPFC parameters are within limits. The
UPFC parameters are computed iteratively by
Newton-Raphson method, no guidelines are given to
select suitable UPFC parameters starting values. so as
to assure quadratic convergence. It is also not cleared
how this model should be used to represent situations
when the UPFC is the only link between two sub-
networks.
Zser
Fig. 3: UPFC Single Line Diagram
3. UPFC INJECTION MODEL
Reference [8J presents an approach of modeling the
UPFC as a series fixed reactance X, together with a set
of active and reactive nodal power injections at each
end of the series reactance Po;, 00;' Poj, O~i. These
powers are expressed as a function of the terminal,
nodal voltages, and the voltage of a series source,
which represents the UPFC series converter. Figure (4)
shows the complete injection model of a UPFC
connected between buses i and j. The series voltage
source V.. r is taken equal to rVi Ly Where 0 < r < rrn..x
and 0 < y < 360. rand y represent the control
parameters of the UPFC.
v.zo,
~----;J
XI
P,i= rb, VNj sin ( 9ij +y) P,;= - rb, ViVjsin ( 8ij+Y)
2 Q,;= - rb, VNj cos ( 8ij+y)
Q.i = rb, Vi cos y
Fig. 4: UPFC Injection Model
The UPFC injection model is implemented into a full
Newton-Raphson power flow progmm by adding the'
UPFC power injections and their derivatives with
respect to the AC network state variables, i.e, nodal
voltage magnitude and angles, at the appropriate
locations in the mismatch vector and Jacobian matrix.
The original dimensions of the mismatch vector and
Jacobian matrix are not altered at all.
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (MEPCON'2oo6)

The UPFC linearized power equations are combined

3.1 Advantages of UPFC Injection Model: with the linearized system of equations corresponding
to the rest ofthe network,
The attraction of this formulation is that it can be .f(x) =[J][Ax] (4)
Where,
implemented easily in existing power flow program
and UPFC can be adjusted to work as voltage
regulator,series compensator or phase shifter.
[f(x) ]=[M', ~P1 ~Q' ~Qi sr, ~Q;i sr
8. Pbb is the power mismatch given by Eqn. 3 and the
r (5)

3.2 Drawbacks of UPFC Injection Model: superscript T indicates transposition. [6. xJ is the
solution vector and {J] is the Jacobian matrix, For the
The major drawback of this model is that the' all- case when the UPFC controls voltage magnitude at the
important aspect of the automatic UPFC parameter AC shunt converter terminal (node i), active power
adjustment has not been addressed. Also, the series flowing from node j to node i and reactive power
voltage source parameters are adjusted by trial and injected at node j, and assuming that node j is PQ-
error in order to achieve certain power flow solution, type" the solution vector and Jacobian matrix are"
which will match the "target" power flow. r
~~h L\JIi ~V~(r ]
[ M ] = ~e,tiOi- - . L\(},,,(r- AB."" (6)
4. COMPREHENSIVE NR UPFC MODEL [_ Vslt fIj ~el'

'Trying to circumvent the limitations in the decoupled

aI', ap; aI', v'" aI', ~ ap; aI', Vse.r ap;
and injection UPFC model, reference [9] developed a
. new and comprehensive UPFC model. This model is a eo eo, aJ';h av; ee; aVt"r eo;
straightforward extension of the power flow equations api aPJ 0 aPJ ~ aPi aI', v...r 0
and hence, it is suitable for incorporation into an OOi 00; oJ'/ ee; a~(r
existing Newton-Raphson load flow algorithm. The
UPFC equivalent circuit used to derive this steady OQi OQi ag V:.1r og J1 OQ OQi Vx:r aQ;
state is shown in figure (3). The equivalent circuit ee a.8./ aVdJ a~ ee; a~c:r aO,h
consists of two ideal voltage sources representing the
fundamental Fourier series component of the switched aQ OQ 0 OQ~ ag OQ'~er 0
voltage waveforms at the AC converter terminals. The aOi eo, oJti . eo; a~('r
source impedances included in the model represent the fJPi; oP" 0 aPi/ JIi aPi/ iJPfl ~t'r 0
positive sequence leakage inductances and resistances
of the coupling lJPFC transformers. The ideal voltage
BO, eo, oJ.'; oe; aV~r

sources are, aQ~/ OQ~i 0 OQ, V;. iJQi/ iJQ{1 Vft'" 0

Vrt;h = Vsit (cos e!\h + j sin e sh) ( I) aOi OBi oJ'; . oe: aV~l'r
V ser= V ser( cos eser + j sin 9 ser) (2) apM apM aphh v.", apM ~ apM aI'"" ~.,. apM

e
Where Vsh and sit are the controllable magnitude (V sh
min ~ Vsh ~ Vsit nUlx) and angle (0 ~ 9 sh ~ 3pOO) of
. the ideal voltage source representing the shunt
converter. The magnitude Vser and angle 9 set' of the
ideal voltage source representing the series converter
are controlled between limits (Vset" min ~ Vser ~ VHI' mix)
and (0 S e ser ~ 360), respectively. Assuming a loss
free converter operation, the UPFC neither absorbs nor
injects active power with respect to the AC system.
The DC link voltage, Vel", remains constant. The active
power associated with the series converter becomes
the DC power. The shunt converter must supply an
equivalent amount of DC power to maintain ~'c
constant. Hence, the active power supplied to the shunt
converter, must satisfy the active power demanded by
the series converter,
Psh + PHI' = 0 (3)
l 00, eo, 8V", aJ1 eo; a~l'r
(7)
an.fill
If the UPFC voltage control is deactivated, the third
column of Eqn. 7 is replaced by partial derivatives of
the nodal and UPFC mismatch powers with respect to
the nodal voltage magnitude Vi. Moreover the shunt
voltage magnitude increment in Eqn. 6 is replaced by
the nodal voltage magnitude increment at node i ( ~ Vi
/ Vi). In this case, V.h is maintained at a fixed value
within the prescribed limits.
4.1 Advantages of Comprehensive NR UPFC
model:
The main advantages that this UPFC model has over
the decoupled and injection model is that the UPFC
state variables are incorporated inside the Jacobian and
mismatch, equations; leading to very robust iterative
solutions. In this unified solution, the UPFC state

-191 -
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOwER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE
variables are adjusted simultaneously with the nodal
network state variables in order to achieve the
specified control targets. Hence, the interaction
between the network and the UPFCis better
represented and the limits of the UPFC state variables
can be identified inside the power flow program. This
model also gives the ability to control the'active and
reactive power simultaneously as well as voltage
magnitude. The losses of the UPFC . coupling
transformers are taken into consideration.
4.1 Drawbacks of Comprehensive NR UPFC
Model:
The drawback of this model is that UPFC cannot be
adjusted to work in voltage regulation, impedance
compensation and phase shift modes. Moreover the
model need good initial conditions for the UPFC state
variables for better convergence, bad initial conditions
may cause divergence.
S. STUDIED SYSTEM:
The six-bus Ward Hall network shown in figure (5)
has been used as a test system to perform the
comparison among the results of the above models.
UPFC is connected between buses I and 4, near bus 4.
Bus 7 is defined as a dummybus to connect UPFC.
a, 1 instead of the values shown in table (2). This mode of
dummy
bus
~)
Fig. 5: Six-bus Ward Hall network
Table (I) defines the series impedance l ser of the
UPFC series transformer; shunt impedance l", of the
UPFC shunt transformer, and the limits of the series
voltage source converter Y se, MAX and shunt voltage
source converter Y sh MAX of UPFC (9].
Table 1: UPFC transformers impedances and voltage
sources converters limits.
Io.O~;O.l z.,
O.OS+jO.l
Y W MAX
0.15
Y sh MAX
1.1
I UPFC termma
-192 -
(MEPCON'2oo6)
5.1 Base Case Without UPFC:
Table (2) shows the voltage magnitude and angle at
bus 4 and the active and reactive power from bus 4 to
bus I before connectingthe UPFC.
Table 2: The voltage magnitude at bus 4 and the active
and reactive
' power througth Iime 41
-
Y4(PU) 9 4 (deg) P4-I(MW) 04-
I(MYAR)
0.9526 -9.922 -48.846 -10.480
5.2 UPFC Applications:
The following sub-sections will illustrate the ability of
each technique to represents UPFC in steady state at
its different operational modes using the results
obtained from load flow program. The best technique
will be determined from the results.
5.1.1 Control Mode II 1: UPFC Control The Voltage
magnitude at bus 4 the Active and reactive power
In line (1-4) simultaneously.
In this section it is required to estimate the UPFC
control variables i.e. (Vlei" L9 on and Y.h L9 sh) and the
UPFC converters ratings that required to adjust the
voltage magnitude at bus 4 and the active and reactive
power in line (1-4) to the values shown in table (3)
control is achieved by the three models as follows in
(a),(b) and (c) respectively.
Table 3: Control parametersofthe system
Case 1:
(a) The decoupled UPFC model can easily represents
UPFC in this mode where bus 4 is defined as PY bus
i.e. P is equal Prerand Y is equal Y",r. Bus 7 is defined
as PO .bus i.e, P is equal P",r and 0 is equal Or".
Running the N-R load flow program yields the data
shown in table (4). These obtained data with the
known data at the UPFC terminals are used as
parameters of set of four nonlinear equations in four
unknowns, which'are (V!a, 9 scrt Ysh. 9 sh) (7].
Table 4: The outputs of the load flow program at the
9. (deg)
-9.5244
Q. (Mar)
18.6783
. d
. Is using i d modeI.
ecoupie
Y 7 (pu)
0.973
9 7 (deg)
-10.2
(b) The UPFC Injection model can achieve those
requirements by selecting UPFC control variables (r,
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (MEPCON'2oo6)

y , Qsh)' through trial and error. Several trials should Table 7: The active and reactive powet of'the series
be made to determine r, yand Qsh, which can fulfill and shunt converters using decoupled. inJection and
Comprehensive ]\!RUPFC models for mode # I. case
the required variables adjustments for (V4. P41, Q4.I).
I.
Table (5) gives the control variables ofUPFC injection
model to achieve the requirements- in table (3). Noting Model Pser p. Qler Qsh
(Mvar) (Mvar)
e
that in this model Vsa equal to rV4t ser equal y, Vsit
Decoupled
(MW)
1.3076
(MW)
-1.3076 3.4094 13.1035
equal V4, and 9 sh equal e4. Injection 1.303 -1.303 3.392S 12.9470
Com. NR,
Table 5: UPFC control variablesusing injection model resistance 1.3076 -1.3076 3.4094 13.1035
neglected
Model r y Qsh Com. NR .
(deg) (Mvar)
resistance 2.7164 -2.7164 2.6828 14.378
Injection 0.0707 13.007
63 considered
(C) In the comprebensive NR UPFC model the
control parameters of the system are entered as input Case 1:
data to the power flow program. The UPFC control Now consider the aCtive power in line (1-4) is adjusted
variables will be directly obtained as outputs of load to be (-60 MW) instead (-50 MW). The control
flow program together with the normal load flow variablesof UPFC are changed to be as shown in table
results. (8).
5.1.1.1 Comparator Study or Three Models for The results show that the series voltage in the UPFC
C'ontrot Mode # I: decoupled model violate the limits (0.2147) but it still
Tables (6) and (7) show the UPFC control variables within the limits in the comprehensive NR UPFC
and the UPFCconvertersratings that requiredto adjust model about (0.15).
the voltage magnitude at bus 4 and the active and
reactive power in line (1-4) using the three models. Table 8: UPFC control variables using decoupled,
The resultsshow that: injection and comprehensiveNR UPFC modelswhen
(a) When the UPFC transformers resistances are Prefbecome (-60) MW for controlmode # 2, case I.
neglected in the comprehensive NR UPFC model its Model V.,(pu) 9.,(deg) VM{pu) 9 5h(deg)
results coincide with those obtained from .UPFC Decoupled p.2.t41.. 61.0109- 1.0012 -4.1003
decoupled model and there is slight different for the Injection' O.IS 10.5099 1.000 -6.45'6
UPFC injection model results than the results of the Com. NR,
other two models due to neglecting UPFC .shunt resistance O.IS 63.9585 1.0067 -6.5514
transformer reactance in this model. neglected
(b) When the UPFC transformers resistances are taken Com. NR,
in consideration in the comprehensive NR lJPFC resistance 0.1483 50.5099 1.0061 -7.6132
model, it gives different results than the other two considered
models. This emphasizes the importance of taking the
UPFC transformers resistances into consideration. 5.2. 2 Control Mode #- 2: UPFC Control The
Voltage magnitude at bus 4 the Aeti\le and reactive
Table6: UPFCcontrol variables using decoupled, power in line (1-4) IDdivida.Oy or tD eo.binatloa.
injection and comprehensive NR UPFC models for
mode #1, case J. In this section it is required to _estimate the UPFC
control variables and converters ratings that required
Model Vser<pu) 8 ser(deg) V.(pu) 9 sh(deg)
adjusting the _voltage magnitude and active and
Decoupled 0.0707 53.1105 1.0129 -9.5983 reactive power individually or in combination. This'
can beachievedas follow:
Injection 0.0707 62.7088 1.OO -9.5230 (8) TheUPFC decoupled model is not valid for this
purpose, where as it was cleared before that lJPFC
Com. NR. deeoupled model depend on thee definition of voltage
resistance 0.0707 53.1105 1.0129 -9.5983 magnitude, and active and reactive power. in its datil.
neglected (b) The VPFC iajedton model is also not valid for
Com. NR, this control mode where the voltage magnitude, active
resistance O.O7~ 28.731 1.0128 -10.896 and reactive power are varied sirmtftaneoHsly. Figures
considered (6,1,,1-) show the variations of the voltage magnitude at
bus 4 and the active and reactive power in line (1-4)

-193-
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (MEPCON'2oo6)

.7.--- __ .,
against y (from 0 up to 360), at various values of r of ~ - ~

the UPFC. The plots reveal that changing y, changes ...

I .,
both ofV4, P4. , and Q4-1 simultaneously [11]. J ' 0
(c) Comprehensive NR UPFC model is able to ; . 11

represents UPFC in this mode and this is cleared from

tables (9.10), which show the UPFC control variables
at different operation modes of voltage magnitude and
line active and reactive power when its transformers
resistances considered and neglected respectively. 5
cases are considered, in case (I) the active and reactive
power is controlled and the shunt converter voltage Figure 8: Change of reactive power from bus4 to bus
magnitude is taken to be 1.0 pu. In case (2) the UPFC 1
adjust the voltagemagnitude, the line active power and Table 9: UPFCcontrol variablesat different operation
the line reactive power is kept at its original value. In cases of voltage magnitude, line active and reactive
case (3) the UPFC adjust the voltage magnitude. the power where UPFC transformersresistances are
line reactive power and the line active power is kept at neglected.
its original value. In cases (4), (5) and (6) the voltage With control mode # 2
magnitude, the line active power and the line reactive V..,(pu) I 9 ser(deg)
power are controlled individually. The results show I
V sh(PU) I 9 sh(deg)
that .there are differences in the UPFC control Case 1: control active and reactive power, V'h = 1;0
variables for each mode when UPFC considered or 0.0676 I 61.9021 I 1.00 I -9.4924
neglected. The series voltage source angle when Case 2: control voltage and active power
resistances neglected is larger than its value when 0.0882 I 36.581 I 1.007 I -9.6648
resistance considered, the differences is due to the Case 3: control voltage and reactive power
losses of the resistances. cases 5 and 6 show 0.0548 I 47.0024 I 1.0142 I -10.246
divergence of load flow program when UPFC Case 4: control voltage magnitude
transformer resistances considered where the line 0.0749 I 28.8134 I 1.0083 I -10.316
couldn't carry the power pass through it in those two Case 5: control active power
modes. 0.0696 I 69.0877 I 0.9513 I -9.2408
Case 6: control reactive power
0.0533 I 99.199 I 0.9585 I -9.8514
X
JO M Table 10: UPFC control variablesat different
operation modes of voltage magnitude, line activeand
i o ,, ~~ reactivepower where UPFC transformers resistances
f 09~ are consIdered. With control mode# 2
0 ."

.., 10') ' so 200 2t5O '100 ~

V...(pu) I 9ser<deg) I V sh(PU) I 9 sh(deg)
.,:,...... lft_.,'1
Case r control active and reactivepower, V,h = 1.0
Figure6: Change of voltage magnitude at bus 4 0.0632 I 47.1788 I 1.00 I -10.5019
Case2: control voltage and active power
.Q .-----~-~---~=::::---.,
0.0973 I 16.7506 I 1.0063 I -10.8356
n
Case 3: control voltage and reactive power
~ ~. 0.0623 I 18.4692 I 1.0141 I -11.5506
j
=j
.~ Case 4: control voltage magnitude
J .... 0.0882 I 8.0489 I 1.0076 I -11.4884
1." Case 5: control active power
J .... Divergence
Case 6: control reactive power
Divergence
Figure7: Change of active power from bus 4 to bus 1

- 194'-
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (MEPCON'2oo6)

5.1.3 Contrel Mode # 3: UPFC operate as voltage 6. Conclusions

regal.tort- h e ialpedance com pensator or phase-
shifter
In this mode of control of UPFC~ the control, variables
are required to make UPFC operate as voltage
regulator, series compensator or phase shi fter [4]. Each
of these modes requires constraint on the UPFC' series
voltage source to be satisfied.
The UPFC injection Dlodel is the unique model that
can be easily used in these cases in this control mode
by entering die above constraints inside the po.wer
flow program.
(a) The vol&a&.e regulation case: requires theUPfC
series voltage to be in phase with the voltage of tbe
controlled bus and the voltage magnitude adjusted at
certainspecified value.
(b) The line impedance compensation case: requires.
the UPFC to realize Eqn.8 Where, a is the rate of
compensation for the impedance of the transmission
line, lij is the line current and Zij is the lumped series
line impedance.
Vser= (I Z Ii; (.8)
(c) The phase shifting case: requires the UPFC series
voltage to realize Eqn.9. Where ~ is the phase ~hift
angle, Xser is the Upre series transformer reactance
and Vi' is the voltage at bus i.
Vser =j Vitan(p)-j Xser Ii.. (9)
Table (II) gives the series voltage magnitude and
angle of UPFC, which require controlling the voltage
magnitude at bus 4 to 1.0 pu. Table (12) shows the
series voltage of UPFC and the voltage at bus 4 for
different values of c. Table (13) shows the series
voltage of UPFC and the voltage at bus 4 for different
This paper gives an- inclusion of three steady state
models tor the UPFC. They are; the UPFC decoupled
model, the UPFC inJection model and the UPFC
comprehensive NR model. The three models have
arranged to be incorporated into a MATlAB power
flow program. A comparison of the load flow results'
incorporating the three models has been held to
illustrate the merits of each model. These results show
that
-The comprehensiye NR is the best model that can
represents the UPFC inside the power flow program if
it is used in the voltage magnitude, line active and'
reactive power control either simultaneously or
individually or in combinationof them.
- Although the simplicity of the UPFC decoupled
model, it is able only te represents lJPFC when it
performs simultaneously control in voltage magnitude,
line active and reactive power.
-The UPFC injection model results show that it can
represents UPFC when. the voltage magnitude, line
active and reactive power changes simultaneously.
Also it is the unique model that able to represents
UPFC when it operates as voltage regulator, line
impedance compensator or phase shifter. Choice of
UPFC model should take those results into
consideration. according to designer requirements.
REfERENCES
[1] M.Z El-Sadek"Power Systems Power
Quality".Book, Mucktar press, Assiut, 2004.
[2] Kaylan K. Sen, and Eric 1. Stacey, UPFC-Unified
U

valuesof IJ'. Power Flow Controller: Theory, Modeling and

Appllcations", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol.13
Table II: ljPFC operate as voltage regulator No.4, p. 1453, 1998.
. for control mode # 3. [3] Xiao-Ping Zhang,. Keith R Godfrey." Advanced
e 4 e ser
lJnified Power Flow Controller Model for power
system steady state control", IEEE, international
-13.5079 -13.5079
conference on electric utility deregulation,
restructuring and power technology, Hong Kong, pp.
Table 12: UPFCoperate as line impedance 228-233.. April 2004.
compensator f or contro I mode # 3 (4.) R. Mihalic, P. Zunko, and D. Povh.. "Improvement
a [Spes] V ser eser V4 94 Of Transient Stability Using Unified Power Flow
0.2 0.0393 53.3822 0.9571 -10.743 Controller", IEEE Trans. On PowerDelivery, Vol. 1r.
0.4 0.08.32 53.163 0.9755 -9.l6S1 No.1, p. 485. 1996.
(5] H. Ambriz-Perez, E. Acha, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel,
Table 13: UPFCoperate as phase shifter and A. De la Tone, "Incorporation Of A UPFC Model
for control mode # 3 In An Optimal Power Ffew Usifts NewtMr's McthtxJ~'.
lEE Proc Gene Trs1I& DiMrih~, VoL t4S,No. J, }. p,
p[Spes} V ser 9'ser V. 0. 4 336, 1998.
3 OJ 059 78.7624 0.966 -7.889 [6] Kalyan K. Sen, and Eric J. Stacey, "UPFC -
5 0.1421 84.6175 0.9699 -6.436 Unified Power FfowCoatrol1eF: Theory, Modeling
And Applications", fEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 13. No.4, 1998.

- 195-
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EASTPOWER SYSTEMS CONFERENCE (MEPCON'2oo6)

[7] A. Nabavi-Niaki and M. R. Iravani. "Steady-state

and dynamic models of unified power flow controller
(UPFC) for power system studies" presented at 1996
IEBEIPES Winter Meeting96 WM 2S7-6,PWRS
[8] M. Noroozian, L. Angquist, M. Ghandhari, and G.
Anderson. ~'Use OfUPFC For Optimal Flow Control",
IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol.. 12. No . 4, .
pp 1629-1634., October, 1997
(9] C.R. Fuerte.E.,Acha, and H. A~~riz-Per~z~ "A
comprhensive Newton-Raphson ~~FC model for the
quadratic power flow solution of practical power
networks,' IEEE Trunsuctions on PowerSystems..
Vol.15, No. I, pp./02-109, 2000.
[ I0] Hadi Saadat, ., Power System Analysis" 'I

international edition 1999.

(11] Alireza Farhangfara . S. Javad.Sajjadi b Saeed
'I

Afshamia "Power Flow.Contro1 and Loss

Minimization with Unified power flow controller
(UPFC)"CCE~E 2004- CCGEI 2004, Niagara Falls,
May/mai2004

-196 -