International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016
Impact of FACTS device in Electrical Power System
Sankalp Asawa
Department of Electrical Power Engineering
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
sankalpasawa@gmail.com
Abstract— The purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact of
three different Flexible Alternating Current Transmission
System (FACTS) devices on a power system and to analyse their
capabilities with respect to various disturbances. FACTS devices
discussed in this paper are Static Var Compensator (SVC),
Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) and Unified
Power Flow Controller (UPFC). The impact on power-flow and
Power Oscillation Damping due to these devices is analysed in
detail. Simulations based on different choices of Power
Oscillation Damping (POD) signal are simulated for small and
large disturbance incurred on the system. Effect of Linear
(residue method) and Non-linear (CLF) based POD signals on
the system is shown in the paper. Impact of each device is
considered separately followed by a comparative study between
them. All simulations are done with the help of SIMPOW© and
all figures are plotted in MATLAB©.
Index Terms-- Control Lyapunov Function, FACTS, Power
Oscillation Damping (POD), Residue Method
I. INTRODUCTION
FACTS devices are power electronics based controllable
devices which have been developed to enhance the
performance of Alternating Current (AC) transmission over
long distances. These devices offer a versatile alternative to
conventional reinforcement methods with potential advantages
of increased flexibility, lower cost and reduced environmental
impact. In order to stabilize a complex power system in terms
of transient stability, control power flow and improve
damping of the inter-area oscillations in large complex
systems FACTS devices are installed in the network [1].
The objective of this paper is to analyse the impact of
FACTS devices in power systems in terms of power flow
results and power oscillation damping. An effective control
strategy is required to keep the behaviour of the system in
acceptable terms if a small or large disturbance occurs on the
system. Control strategies based on linear and non-linear
methods using local and remote signals are discussed in this
paper. It has been shown that local signal as a control input
can damp electromechanical oscillations following a
disturbance, but is less effective as compared to cases when
remote signal is used [2]. The single machine equivalent
(SIME) representation is used in this paper [3].
Modelling of FACTS devices in terms of regulator is
explained in brief in the subsequent sections of the paper.
Linear control methods based on residue method as well as
non-linear control method based on CLF for POD signals are
discussed in this paper. System behaviour with the help of
simulation results for the system without POD, linear POD
(using local and remote signal) and non-linear POD signal are
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Sam Al-Attiyah
Department of Electrical Power Engineering
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
sam3@kth.se
also investigated in this paper. This is followed by a
comparative discussion between different signals and devices.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In section II
modelling of FACTS devices is presented. Section III
describes the modal analysis of a power system. Power
Oscillation Damping (POD) is discussed in section IV.
Simulations on the given system are provided in section V.
Comparison between devices is done in section VI. Section
VII concludes this paper.
II. FACTS DEVICES
The voltage at a bus is directly related to the reactive
power of that bus [4]. Thus by introducing a method of
absorbing or supplying reactive power into the bus, the
voltage at the given bus can be controlled. This method can be
employed by the help of FACTS devices.
The modelling of the FACTS devices is done under certain
assumptions [5]. These assumptions are (a) devices are
lossless, (b) voltages and currents are assumed to be sinusoidal
(only the fundamental frequency components are considered),
(c) only the positive sequence system is considered and (d) all
quantities are expressed in per unit (p.u.).
A. Static Var Compensator (SVC)
SVCs are utilized for voltage control since they can
generate and absorb reactive power and function as a static
device [1]. The basic structure of the SVC is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Basic SVC circuit
SVC is represented as a capacitor (‫ܥ‬ௌ௏஼ ) in parallel with an
inductor (‫ܮ‬ௌ௏஼ ) that is in series with two thyristor switches
(ܶଵ -ܶଶ ). The overall reactive power supplied or absorbed by
the SVC is controlled by controlling the overall equivalent
reactance of SVC. SVC can operated in inductive region (i.e.
absorbing reactive power) as well as capacitive region (i.e.
2488
generating reactive power). This is done by varying the
reactance through the use of the thyristor switches to switch
the inductor (‫ܮ‬ௌ௏஼ ) by varying the firing angle [5].
The static model of the SVC i.e. steady-state model can be
expressed as a function of the reference voltage (ܷ௥௘௙ ሻ, the
slope of the SVC reactance (ܺௌ௅ ሻ and the current injected into
the bus at which SVC is installed (‫ܫ‬ௌ௏஼ ሻ as seen in (1)
ܷ ൌ ܷ௥௘௙ േ ܺௌ௅ ‫ܫ‬ௌ௏஼ (1)
The dynamic model of the SVC can be represented as Fig. 3. Basic TCSC Structure
shown in Fig. 2.
The static model of the TCSC shown in Fig. 4 is installed
between BUS ݅ሺܷ ഥ௜ ሻ and BUS ݉ሺܷ ഥ௠ ሻ. It is done by installing
it between BUS ݅ሺܷ ഥ௜ ሻ and a hypothetical BUS ݆ሺܷ ഥ௝ ሻ. By
controlling the firing angle of the thyristors, TCSC can be
modelled as a variable series reactance ்ܺ஼ௌ஼ [6]. Active
power (ܲ௜௠ ሻ flowing from BUS i to BUS m is given by (4).
ܺ௟௜௡௘ represent the line reactance and ߠ௜௠ is the angular
difference between phasor voltages of ሺܷഥ௜ ሻ and ሺܷഥ௠ ሻ.

Fig 2. Dynamic model of SVC

In this model, the voltage at the bus (U) at which SVC is Fig. 4. Steady-state model of TCSC
installed is compared with the reference voltage (ܷ௥௘௙ ሻ and
the POD Signal 1 (POD is discussed in section IV). It consists ܷ௜ ܷ௠
ܲ௜௠ ൌ •‹ሺߠ௜௠ ሻ (4)
of a voltage regulator which is of PI type, and the slope ܺௌ௅ is ܺ௟௜௡௘ െ ்ܺ஼ௌ஼
included through a current feedback. In this paper, slope ܺௌ௅ is
It is clear from (4) that the active power through the line in
neglected (i.e. ܺௌ௅ = 0). It consists of two gain parameters
steady state is dependent on ்ܺ஼ௌ஼ (equivalent reactance of
(‫ܭ‬௉ Ƭ‫ܭ‬ூ ሻ through which signal is processed. Then it is
TCSC). Thus by varying ்ܺ஼ௌ஼ within limits active power
summed with POD signal 2, thus giving the output of the
through the line can be controlled.
regulator to be a variable reactance‫ܤ‬ௌ௏஼ . Equation (2)
describes the dynamic variance of ‫ܤ‬ௌ௏஼ when POD Signal 1 is ௠௜௡
்ܺ஼ௌ஼ ௠௔௫
൑ ்ܺ஼ௌ஼ ൑ ்ܺ஼ௌ஼ (5)
used (i.e. Signal 2=0). The resulting reactive power at the bus
where the SVC is installed is given by (3) [6]. The dynamic model of the TCSC can be represented by
the block diagram shown in Fig. 5. Power control through the
ͳ line is done by passing real power (ܲ௟௜௡௘ ሻ into the TCSC
‫ܤ‬ሶௌ௏஼ ൌ ቀെ‫ܤ‬ௌ௏஼ ൅ ‫ܭ‬ோ ൫ܷ௥௘௙ ൅ ܵ݅݃௢௨௧ െ ܷ൯ቁ (2)
ܶோ control system and compared with the reference (ܲ௥௘௙ ሻ and
Power Oscillation Damping signal 1. The next part of the
ܳௌ௏஼ ൌ െ‫ܤ‬ௌ௏஼ ܷ ଶ (3) block represents the slope characteristics of the TCSC and it is
Since the system is limited by the maximum and minimum bound by the upper and lower limits of the system. The gain
‫ܤ‬ௌ௏஼ values there is capping of maximum absorbed or injected ‫ܭ‬௉ is designed to tune the control to improve its properties [7].
reactive power. Output is summed with POD signal 2 which is passes to the
lag block, where ܶ௖ represents the time constant of the TCSC
B. Thyristor Controlled Series Capcitor (TCSC) device. If current control model is used instead of active
TCSC can be considered as a variable reactance in series power flow model then ܲ௥௘௙ and ܲ௟௜௡௘ should be replaced by
with the transmission line. A TCSC device operates through equivalent ‫ܫ‬௥௘௙ and ‫ܫ‬௟௜௡௘ respectively [8].
the use of a combination of a capacitor (‫்ܥ‬஼ௌ஼ ), an inductor
(‫் ܮ‬஼ௌ஼ ) and two thyristors (ܶଵ -ܶଶ ) to switch the device as
shown in Fig. 3. It is mainly operated in capacitive region,
which is tuned by varying the firing angle of the thyristors [5].
Unlike SVCs, in TCSCs the line current (݅௟௜௡௘ ሻ or real
power (ܲ௟௜௡௘ ) is imposed quantity instead of the voltage.
By controlling the overall reactance of the line through the use
of the TCSC it is possible to control the power flow through
the line leading to improved transient stability and power
oscillation damping for interconnected power systems as well
as allowing higher real power transfer through the
transmission lines. Fig. 5. Dynamic model of TCSC

2489
C. Unified Power Flow Controller(UPFC)
UPFC is a combined shunt-series connected device. It is a
combination of a STATCOM (shunt part) and a SSSC (series
part) of which VSC shares a common DC part [4]. It provides
series compensation in the line, which allows the control of
both power and oscillation damping.
Through this part, an AC voltage (‫ܧ‬௦௘ ൌ ‫ܧ‬௦௘ ‫ߛס‬௦௘ ሻ is
injected into the line of which both magnitude and phase angle
can be controlled. Thus real and reactive power flow through
this line can be controlled almost independently by the control
of ‫ܧ‬௦௘ ܽ݊݀ߛ௦௘ Ǥ It also provides voltage control and power
quality improvements through the shunt reactance [6]. The
shunt part (‫ܫ‬തത௦௘
തതሻ acts like a STATCOM, but in UPFC it
exchanges real power. Fig. 6 shows the basic circuit diagram
of a UPFC.
VSC 1 VSC 2
Fig. 6. UPFC Circuit diagram
The static model of the UPFC can be represented by the
injection model (Fig. 7), where the shunt controller can be
represented by active and reactive power injection and the
series controller by a voltage source. As both VSCs are
connected by their DC part, active power flowing through the
line (series part) ܲ௦௘ comes from the exchange of active power
ܲ௦௛ at the bus where shunt part is connected. Thus in steady
state, ܲ௦௛ ൌ ܲ௦௘ [5].
Fig. 7. Injection Model of UPFC
Characteristics variables of injection model i.e. ܲ௦௜ , ܳ௦௜ ,
ܲ௦௝ and ܳ௦௝ are dependent on ‫ܧ‬௦௘ and ߛ௦௘ . Compete
dependency of these variables is given in detail in [5].
For transient stability and small signal analysis, three
controllers are used. One for ܳ௦௛ and two for ‫ݑ‬௣ and ‫ݑ‬௤ which
are phase and quadrant component of ‫ܧ‬௦௘ with ܷ௜ Ǥ
‫ܧ‬௦௘ ൌ ‫ܧ‬௦௘ ݁ ఊೞ೐ ݁ ఏ೔ ൌ ൫‫ݑ‬௣ ൅ ݆‫ݑ‬௤ ൯݁ ௝ఏ೔
ൌ ‫ݑ‬௣ ݁ ௝ఏ೔ ൅ ݆‫ݑ‬௤ ݁ ௝ఏ೔
(6)
ൌ ܷ௣ ൅ ܷ ௤
‫ݑ‬௣ ൌ ‫ܧ‬௦௘ …‘•ሺߛ௦௘ ሻ ܽ݊݀‫ݑ‬௤ ൌ ‫ܧ‬௦௘ •‹ሺߛ௦௘ ሻ
Power through the line is used as an input signal for ‫ݑ‬௤
and the voltage at BUS j is used for ‫ݑ‬௣ . Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 are
the block diagrams used as model of the UPFC for simulation
of various results [1].
Figure 8: Block diagram of VSC 1 control
Fig. 9. Block diagram of VSC 2 control
The limitation in the reactive power is derived from the
rating ܵ௩௦௖ଵ of the VSCs (6).
௠௔௫ ଶ
ܳ௦௛ ൌ ටܵ௩௦௖ଵ െ ܲ௦௘ଶ (7)
III. MODAL ANALYSIS
A Power system can be represented in generalized form in
terms of state (x), algebraic (y) and input (u) variables as show
in (8) [4].
‫ݔ‬ሶ ൌ ݂ሺ‫ݔ‬ǡ ‫ݕ‬ǡ ‫ݑ‬ሻ
(8)
Ͳ ൌ ݃ሺ‫ݔ‬ǡ ‫ݕ‬ǡ ‫ݑ‬ሻ
When dealing with small signal analysis and stability of
power system linearization and state space representation
techniques are used. Stability of a system can be analysed
through the eigen values of the system [9]. The state space
model is characterized by four matrices: the state matrix A, the
input matrix B, the output matrix C and the feed-forward
matrix D
ȟ‫ݔ‬ሶ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ࡭Ǽ‫ݔ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൅ ࡮Ǽ‫ݑ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ
(9)
ȟࣳሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ࡯Ǽ‫ݔ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൅ ࡰǼ‫ݑ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ
In the above representationǼ‫ݔ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ, Ǽ‫ݑ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ and ȟࣳሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ
represent the small signal change around equilibrium point in
state variable(s), the input signal(s) to the system and the
output(s) of the system respectively. Thus A is specific to
system and B, C, D are dependent on the chosen input and
output. System is linearized around the stable equilibrium
point and eigen values are found from the state matrix A. In
modal analysis, these eigen values are termed as modes of the
2490
system. Each mode is associated with frequency and damping
as per the following equations.
‫݁݀݋ܯ‬ǣߣ௜ ൌ ߪ௜ ൅ ݆߱௜
߱௜
‫ݕܿ݊݁ݑݍ݁ݎܨ‬ǣ݂௣௜ ൌ
ʹߨ (10)
ߪ௜
‫݃݊݅݌݉ܽܦ‬ǣ ߦ௜ ൌ െ
ȁߣ௜ ȁ
In order for the system to be stable, the damping ratio
should be positive [9]. Thus by having negative damping
mode the system will become unstable if subjected to a
disturbance. As according to N-1 criteria, the system should
be stable even if there is breakdown of one generator [4]. This
implies that the system should be stable component wise.
However, the modes with small positive value of damping
ratio, may transform into modes with negative value when the
system is subjected to disturbance. Poorly damped modes
cause the system to take long time to return to the steady state
value. The least stable modes of the system, which come into
the category of inter-area modes are considered in this paper.
Inter-area modes are modes of the frequency range between
0.1 Hz and 1 Hz [10].
In order to improve damping ratio of the inter-area mode
(unstable modes) thus improving the stability of system,
FACTS devices are installed [1]. Graphical representation of
shifting of inter-area mode (eigen value) towards left in state
space representation by implementing FACTS device (TCSC)
is shown in the Fig. 21.
The two important concepts of observability and
controllability of a mode are now introduced.
A. Observability:
The observability of a mode is a measure of how well this
mode can be observed in the output of the system. If the
observability is zero then the mode cannot be observed in the
output(s). There are different techniques to calculate
observability. One efficient way to calculate it is given by (11)
[11].
ȁ࡯் ࢜௥௜ ȁ
ܱܾ‫ݏ‬௜ ൌ (11)
ԡ࡯ԡฮ࢜௥௜ ฮ
With ࢜࢘࢏ corresponding to the normalized right eigenvector
associated to the eigen value i.
B. Controllability:
The controllability of a mode is the measure of how well
this mode can be controlled by the chosen input(s). If the
controllability of this mode is zero then the mode cannot be
controlled by the chosen input(s). Similarly as observability,
the controllability can be calculated as given in (12) [11].
หሺ࢜࢒࢏ ሻ் ࡮ห
‫݊݋ܥ‬௜ ൌ (12)
ฮ࢜࢒࢏ ฮԡ࡮ԡ
Here,࢜࢒࢏ corresponds to the normalized left eigenvector
associated to the eigenvalue i.
IV. POWER OSCILLATION DAMPING
Inter-area modes may cause instability in the system, thus
are a weakness of a power system for which the FACTS
devices are installed. In small-signal analysis, one of the
common methods to improve the damping of these modes is
by using Power Oscillation Damping (POD) signal. This
corresponds to the addition of an input signal in the regulators
of the FACTS devices. This POD input signal can be seen in
Fig. 2, Fig. 5 and Fig. 9.
This signal can be injected at different positions in the
regulator (Signal 1 or 2). In this paper two different methods
are used for obtaining POD signal. The first method is based
on linearization of system which is based on the tuning of
lead-lag filters by the residue method. Conversely, the second
method takes into consideration the nonlinear nature of the
system which is based on the Control Lyapunov Function
(CLF).
A. Linear lead-lag filters connected in cascade with a
washout filter
Fig. 10 shows a regulator for POD signal based on linear
tuning.
SigIN TWs 1+T11s 1+T21s SigOUT
KPOD
1+TWs 1+T12s 1+T22s
Fig. 10. Regulator for linear POD
The first block in the Fig. 10 represents the washout filter.
This is a high-pass filter used to eliminate the average value of
the input signal and it extracts only the oscillating part. The
second and third blocks are known as phase compensation
blocks which are indeed lead-lag type transfer function. The
purpose of these blocks is to shift the phase by setting ܶଵଵ െ
ܶଶଶ at values so that a positive contribution to damping is
obtained [4][9].
The gain (KPOD) modifies the amplitude of the output
signal which is then limited by a saturation block. The number
of lead-lag filters (1 or 2), their time constants
ሺܶଵଵ ǡ ܶଵଶ ǡ ܶଶଵ ǡ ܶଶଶ ሻ and the gain (KPOD) are tuned by the
residue method.
The residue of a transfer function, ‫ܩ‬ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ൌ
௢௨௧௣௨௧
, at ߣ௜ is
௜௡௣௨௧
expressed as in (13) [9].
ܴത௜ ൌ ࡯࢜࢘࢏ ࢜࢒࢏ ࡮ (13)
Fig. 11. System transfer function
Having a feedback transfer function of the form H(s,k)=k
H(s) (where k is a constant gain) between the input and output,
it can be shown that [4]
߲ߣ௜
ൌ ܴത௜ ‫ܪ‬ሺߣ௜ ሻ (14)
߲݇

2491
 For small gain, the above expression can be rewritten as ͳ
߱ே ൌ ෍ ‫ܯ‬௝ ߱௝
οߣ௜ ‫ܯ‬ே
ൌ ܴത௜ ‫ܪ‬ሺߣ௜ ሻ (15) ௝ఢே
ο݇ In (19) ߱௖ corresponds to the equivalent speed of rotation
Thus, if a feedback transfer function is added to the of all the critical machines: these are the machines responsible
system, the ith eigen value will be changed as of the loss of synchronism of the system.߱ே is the equivalent
speed of rotation of the non-critical machines [4].
ഥ ୧ ሺɉ୧ ǡ ሻ
οɉ୧ ൌ  (16) B. Control Lyapunov Function (CLF)
Let: ߶ ൌ ͳͺͲ െ ƒ”‰ሺܴതሻ (17) This approach for POD signal takes into account the
nonlinear nature of the power system and is based on a
completely different theoretical background [2]. Given system
(8) under certain assumptions can be implicitly represented by
(19), where h(x) is a conversion-implicit function [5].
‫ݔ‬ሶ ൌ ݂൫‫ݔ‬ǡ ݄ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ൯ ൌ ݂ሚሺ‫ݔ‬ሻǡ ‫ ܴ ك ߗߝݔ‬௡ೣ (19)
For such systems, a CLF: V(x) is defined by
ሺ݅ሻܸሺ‫ݔ‬଴ ሻ ൌ Ͳ
ሺ݅݅ሻܸሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൐ Ͳǡ ‫ܦߝݔ׊‬ǡ ‫ݔ ് ݔ‬଴ (20)
ሶ
ሺ݅݅݅ሻܸ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ݃‫݀ܽݎ‬ሺܸሻǤ ݂൫‫ݔ‬ǡ ‫ݑ‬ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ൯ ൏ Ͳǡ ‫ܦߝݔ׊‬ǡ ‫ݔ ് ݔ‬଴
If V(x) is a CLF and if the control system can be
Fig. 12. Trajectory of eigen value: Shifting of mode
approximated by (21), then a good input signal for a feedback
control is given by (22) [5].
Then depending on the value of߶, the number of lead-lag ௠
filter(s) (nf) can be selected based on the following, if ‫ݔ‬ሶ ൌ ݂଴ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൅ ෍ ‫ݑ‬௜ ݂௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ (21)
Ͳ ൏ ȁ߶ȁ ൑ ͸Ͳ ฺ ݂݊ ൌ ͳ ௜ୀଵ
͸Ͳ ൏ ȁ߶ȁ ൑ ͳʹͲ ฺ ݂݊ ൌ ʹ
ͳʹͲ ൏ ȁ߶ȁ ൑ ͳͺͲ ฺ ݂݊ ൌ ͳ and also set ߶ ൌ ‫ݑ‬௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ െ݃‫݀ܽݎ‬ሺܸሻǤ ݂௜ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ݅ߝ ሾͳǡ ݉ሿ (22)
െ ƒ”‰ሺܴതሻ ǡ ‫ܭ‬௉ை஽ ൌ ‫ܭ‬௉ை஽ ݁ ௝గ When considering a Single-Machine-Infinite-Bus system
Now the values of ܶଵଵ -ܶଶଶ can be obtained as [9], energy function can be considered as for CLF (23). It
ଵ
ଵାୱ୧୬ቀ
ഝ
ቁ
consists of kinetic energy ቀ ‫߱ܯ‬ଶ ቁ and potential energy
೙೑ ଵ ଶ
ߙൌ ഝ ǡ ܶൌ ǡ ܶଵଵ ൌ ߙܶǡ ܶଵଶ ൌ ܶ (18) function ሺ‫ܥ‬଴ െ ܲ௠ ߜ െ ܲ௘௠௔௫ …‘•ሺߜሻሻ.
ଵିୱ୧୬ቀ ቁ ఠ ೛ ξఈ
೙೑
ͳ
݂݊ ൌ ͳ ฺ  ܶଶଵ ൌ ܶଶଶ to remove the second lead-lag ܸ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ‫߱ܯ‬ଶ െ ܲ௠ ߜ െ ܲ௘௠௔௫ …‘•ሺߜሻ ൅ ‫ܥ‬଴ (23)
ʹ
filter
݂݊ ൌ ʹ ฺ  ܶଶଵ ൌ ܶଵଵ ܽ݊݀ܶଶଶ ൌ ܶଵଶ  Then the input signal based on the CLF law is:
The above equations are also valid for a negative arg (ܴത), ܵ݅݃௜௡ ൌ ݇‫݊݅ݏ‬ሺߜሻ߱ (24)
but then ߶ ൌ െͳͺͲ െ ƒ”‰ሺܴതሻ. The gain is chosen in order to
maximize the least of the damping ratios. This signal (24) or its counterpart ܵ݅݃௜௡ ൌ ݇ܿ‫ݏ݋‬ሺߜሻ߱ will
System behaviour varies with different input signals be used in the paper as input signals of the PODs. Further
chosen for POD. In this report two different input signals for analysis in this paper is done in terms of SIME equivalent
POD will discussed. variables. Similar theoretical analysis can be applied to SIME
system to get equivalent input signals based on control
First signal used for POD is active power through a Lyapunov function. The theoretical backgrounds for these
particular transmission line. This corresponds to local derivations are described in detail in [2][5].
information and usually has a good observability [1]. Second
signal used is equivalent speed of rotation in the single V. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
machine equivalent (SIME): ߱ௌூொ (19). This signal is a The single line diagram of the power system on which
gathering of many remote signals and therefore it has often a FACTS devices are installed is shown in Fig. 13. For this
poor observability but comparatively better damping [2]. system,
߱ௌூொ ൌ ߱௖ െ ߱ே 1. SVC is installed at bus 4
ͳ 2. TCSC is installed between line is connected from bus
߱௖ ൌ ෍ ‫ܯ‬௜ ߱௜ (19) 7 to bus 6.
‫ܯ‬௖
௜ఢ஼ 3. UPFC is connected to bus 7, in series with the line
between bus 7 and bus 6.

2492
 Simulations were carried out by installing each of the TABLE 1: EIGEN VALUES
FACTS device on the given system (Fig. 13) separately.
Inter-area Mode: Properties
System POD
࣌ ࢌሺࡴࢠሻ ࣀ(%) KPOD
NO FACTS -0.006 0.642 00.159 --
No POD -0.013 0.647 00.320 --
Input: ଵସ -1.617 0.622 38.231 3.53
SVC Input: ɘୗ୍୑୉ -0.485 0.685 11.197 -449
CLF(Signal 1) -0.743 0.617 18.823 -500
CLF(Signal 2) -0.084 0.642 02.082 -500
No POD -0.048 0.689 01.111 --
Input: ଷ଺ -0.583 0.701 13.116 0.004
TCSC Input: ɘୗ୍୑୉ -0.619 0.701 13.914 0.264
CLF(Signal 1) -2.464 0.604 54.456 3
CLF(Signal 2) -0.272 0.689 06.271 3
No POD -0.033 0.675 00.778 --
-500,
UPFC CLF(Signal 1) -1.839 0.574 45.426
-500
Fig. 13. Line diagram of system -500,
CLF(Signal 2) -0.435 0.610 11.277
-500
A. Modal Analysis:
Linear modal analysis of the system provides information TABLE 2: CONTROL SIGNAL
about inter-area modes as well as of the oscillation of
generator 3 (Gen 3) against generator 1 (Gen 1) and generator Device Output Signal Controllability Observability
2 (Gen 2) (Fig. 14). SVC ߱ௌூொ ͵Ǥ͵ͻ͸͸Ͷͺ ൈ ͳͲିସ  ͷǤ͹͸ͺ͵ͷͲ ൈ ͳͲିଷ

SVC ܲଵସ ͵Ǥ͵ͻ͸͸ͷͳ ൈ ͳͲିସ  ͻǤͷͶ͸ͷ͵͵ ൈ ͳͲିଶ

TCSC ߱ௌூொ ͶǤͺͷ͵͹Ͷʹ ൈ ͳͲିଷ  ͹ǤͲͺͶͻͺͲ ൈ ͳͲିଷ

TCSC ܲଷ଺ ͶǤͺͷ͵͹Ͷʹ ൈ ͳͲିଷ  ͸ǤͶͻͷ͸͵ͷ ൈ ͳͲିଶ

UPFC - ͵Ǥʹͷͷ͵ʹ͹ ൈ ͳͲିହ  Ǧ

TABLE 3: TUNING PARAMETERS

Tuning Parameters
System Input Number
T11 T12 T21 T22 TW
Signal Filters
P14 2 0.0892 0.6791 0.0892 0.6791 5
SVC
ȦSIME 1 0.2257 0.2681 1 1 5
Fig. 14. Compass plot showing critical and non-critical machines with
no FACTS P36 2 0.0976 0.5463 0.0976 0.5463 5
TCSC
ȦSIME 1 0.2448 0.2179 1 1 5
The eigenvalue of the inter-area mode are calculated for
different controllers and devices for the chosen gain in Table I. Effect of FACTS device on the system can be seen by the
Table II show the calculated controllability and observability way system reacts with different control strategies i.e.
for different devices and output signals. Tuning parameters of different POD signals in case of disturbance (Small and Large
lead-lag filters for different input signals for linear POD are Disturbance). These simulation for are presented in Fig. 15
shown in Table III. and Fig. 18 for SVC, in Fig. 16 and Fig. 19 for TCSC and in
B. Fault Analysis: Fig. 17 and Fig. 20 for UPFC. Unless specified these
Given system (Fig. 13) is simulated for two types of fault: simulation were done by choosing POD signal as Signal 1 in
regulators of FACTS devices. It can be inferred from these
• Small disturbance: Disconnection of the entire load at simulation that for different POD signals different power
BUS 5 from t=1000ms to t=1100ms. oscillation damping is achieved.
• Large disturbance: 3 phase fault at Bus 5 from
t=1000ms to t=1100ms.

2493
 Fig. 15. SVC: Small disturbance
Fig. 18. SVC: Large disturbance

Fig. 16. Small Disturbance

Fig. 19. TCSC: Large disturbance

No FACTS Device
1.5 CLF at Signal 1
1 CLF at Signal 2
(deg)

0.5
0
SIME

-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 2 4 6
Time(s)
Fig. 17. UPFC: Small disturbance
VI. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISION
A. Power flow calculations
After installing FACTS devices into the system, in steady
state different load-flow results are obtained. The load bus
voltage has a different increment under each case comparing
to No FACTS case. The SVC increased the bus voltage
significantly while the TCSC is not as effective as SVC. This
is in consistent with the theory of these devices. Also, UPFC
improves the voltage of the buses to which it is connected.
B. Eigen value Analysis:
Shifting of inter-area mode on implementing FACTS
device (TCSC) with different POD signal is shown in Fig. 21.
POD signal based on CLF gives maximum improvement
in the damping ratio of the inter area mode which can be
explained since this POD signal takes non-linear nature of the
ODE. POD signal based on linear tuning also give significant
improvement in damping ratio, keeping minimal change in
frequency of the mode.
8 10
Fig. 20. UPFC: Large disturbance
As stated in Section III, the modified system which gives
maximum damping ratio for the inter-area mode is the most
stable system, thus making POD signal based on CLF as the
best strategy for implementation of FACTS (TCSC) device.
Similar results were obtained for other devices which are
consistent with this conclusion.
Tuning was done in such a way that frequency of the inter-
area mode was nearly kept constant. Although, for SVC and
TCSC the frequency of the inter-area mode was changed even
for small gains and other modes were also affected in some
way. This can attest to the fact that the changing of damping
ratio of a mode of the system is not independent of their
change in frequency.
C. Comparision between different POD signals and devices
It can be inferred from the simulation results that for all
the different types of POD signals, in steady state when
system is subjected to a disturbance, power oscillation
damping is achieved and߂ߜௌூொ has a tendency to tend

2494
towards zero. Consistent with the theoretical aspects, in
simulation results maximum power oscillation damping was
achieved when non-linear POD signal (CLF) was used.
Frequency
Fig. 21. Shifting of mode (TCSC)
A much higher gain is needed for lead-lag (࣓ࡿࡵࡹࡱ )
compared to lead-lag (ࡼ૟ૠ ) when using SVC and TCSC.
This is due to the much lower observability for ߱ௌூொ as
output since according to (11) and (13) a lower observability
(as controllability is same for signals) means that higher gain
is required in to order to move the eigenvalue the same
distance. It can also be concluded that same damping can be
achieved when Signal 2 is used as compared to Signal 1 if the
gain is increased. This can attributed to the fact that Signal 1 is
being passed through PI controller (Fig. 2, Fig. 5 & Fig. 9)
which gives better controllability, thus better residue (13) [10].
For the given system, maximum damping was achieved by
installing TCSC followed by UPFC and SVC. Theoretically
UPFC should provide maximum damping as it has two
controllers i.e. both active and reactive power control. But
damping is also affected by the location at which FACTS
device is installed. As TCSC is located in-between the area of
critical and non-critical machines, thus it provides more
controlling power to damp the oscillations and stabilise the
system.
Some of the controllers require negative gain. This is due
to the code sequence in SIMPOW. If the feedback signal is
subtracted, as in this case, instead of added in the summation,
the gain needs to be negative in order to compensate in the
right direction.
VII. CONCLUSION
Three different types of FACTS devices namely SVC,
TCSC and UPFC were presented in this paper. Also, the
simulation results of a simple power system with each of these
devices and their behaviour during a small and large
disturbance were discussed. From the results for the system
chosen, it suggests that TCSC is the best device as it has better
damping when compared to other devices. This can be
attributed to the fact that TCSC has better controllability. This
is due to its link between critical and non-critical machines
(location).
Comparing the observability of the input signals provides
the informationn on which signal will provide better damping.
This is used in choosing the input for Residue method. As
discussed earlier, Residue method is an effective method to
improve a specific mode without affecting other modes. Thus
controllability and observability of the inter-area mode is the
decisive factor in selecting the location of these devices in a
power system.
As suggested, UPFC can be best device suitable for power
oscillation damping provided that location of installation of
device is appropriate. But the dis-advantage with UPFC is that
it will be costly. Thus, the cost effective solution for
increasing the damping of power oscillations and increasing
the transient stability of the system will thus be to implement a
TCSC.
Power system stabilizers (PSSs) can effectively damp out
local oscillation modes, but not to inter-area modes [10].
Therefore, it is suggested that, to improve the system’s
damping, a PSS should be installed.
It can be concluded from the simulation results that
FACTS devices with Power of Oscillation (POD) signal gives
better damping and transient stability as compared to when
there is no POD signal in regulators. POD signal based on
non-linear control strategy (CLF) provides the maximum
damping to the system which should be used among all the
different control methods presented. Also, use of remote
signal is better than use of local signal for damping and
stability can also be inferred from the simulation plot.
REFERENCES
[1] Task Force 38.01.08, Modelling of Power Electronics
Equipment (FACTS) in Load Flow and Stability Programs,
Cigre
[2] Ghandhari. M., Andersson, G., Hiskens, I.A.: Control Lyapunov
functions for controllable series devices, IEEE transactions on
power systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, November 2001
[3] Pavella, M., Ernst, D., Ruiz-Vega, D.: Power system transient
stability analysis and control, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000
[4] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill
Inc., 1994.
[5] Mehrdad Ghandhari, Hector Latorre, Lennart Ängquist, Hans-
Peter Nee, Dirk Van Hertem: The Impact of FACTS and HVDC
Systems on Transient Stability and Power Oscillation Damping,
Electric Power Systems, Royal Institute of Technology, 2012
[6] Therond, M. Modeling of Power Electronics Equipment
(FACTS) in Load Flow and Stability Programs, August 1991
[7] Yang, N., Liu, Q., LIcCalle, J., TCSC Controller Design for
Damping Interarea Oscillations, Power Systems, Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 1991
[8] Gama, C., Ängquist, L., Ingeström, M, Noroozian, M.:
Commissioning and operative experience of TCSC for damping
power oscillation in the Brazillian north-south interconnection,
session 14-104, CIGRE, 2000
[9] Mehrdad Ghandhari: Stability of Power Systems An
Introduction, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Electric
Power Systems, 2013
[10] Klein, M., Rogers, G.J., Kundur, P., A Fundamental Study of
Inter-area Oscillations in Power Systems, Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, August 1991
[11] Hamdan, A.M.A; Elabdalla, A.M: Geometric Measures of
Modal Controllability and Observability of Power System
Models, Electric Power Systems Research, 15 (1988), pp. 147-
155.
2495