Optimal Location of SVC and TCSC for Voltage

Stability Enhancement
O. L. BEKRI
*
M.K. FELLAH
**
loubabab@yahoo.fr mkfellah@yahoo.fr
*
ICEPS laboratory (Intelligent Control & Electrical Power Systems)
Institute of Sciences and Technology.
University Dr. Moulay Tahar, Sada, Algeria.
Phone: 048 47 47 07 Fax: 048 47 42 62
**
ICEPS laboratory (Intelligent Control & Electrical Power Systems)
Electrical Engineering Department, Engineering Sciences Faculty
Sidi Bel-Abbes University, Algeria

Abstract- It is well known that voltage stability enhancement
margin is interrelated with reactive power loss. To enhance
voltage stability, location and placement of FACTS devices is a
major task. In this paper, voltage stability assessment with
appropriate representation of SVC and TCSC is investigated and
compared in the IEEE 6-bus system. Continuation power flow
analysis, with accurate model of these controllers, is used for this
study. The effects of these controllers on voltage stability are
examined. It is found that these controllers significantly increase
the loading parameter of power systems.

Keywords: Voltage Stability, SVC, TCSC, CPF analysis

I. Introduction:
Voltage stability is the ability of a system to maintain steady
acceptable voltages at all the buses in the system at all
conditions. The ability to transfer reactive power from
production source to consumption areas during steady-state
operating conditions is a major problem of voltage stability. A
system mainly enters a state of voltage instability when a
disturbance, increase in load demand, or change in system
condition cause a progressive and uncontrollable decline in
voltage.
Voltage instability [1, 2] can be avoided by: (a) appropriate load
shedding on the consumer network; (b) on load tap changers; (c)
reactive compensation (series and/or shunt).
A key contributing factor in voltage collapse is the rapid and
progressive loss of voltage controllability due to reactive limit
violations.
The voltage stability problem can be analyzed with the
conventional PV or QV curves. Since the voltage stability is
strongly related to reactive power balance as well as active
power balance, the total loss of reactive power in the network
can be assessed with the static voltage stability index.
FACTS devices are solid state converters that have the capability
of control of various electrical parameters in transmission
network. FACTS devices provide proven technical solutions to
voltage stability problems. Especially, due to the increasing need
for fast response for power quality and voltage stability,
The recent development and use of FACTS controllers in power
transmission system have led to many applications of these
controllers not only to improve the voltage stability of the
existing power network resources but also to provide operating
flexibility to the power system.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II introduces
Mathematical Representation of Power Systems. Continuation
power flow analysis is presented in section III. Modeling of SVC
and TCSC devices is presented in section IV.
In section V, some interesting results are presented along with
detailed discussion finally; our contributions and conclusions are
summarized in SectionVI.

II. Mathematical Representation of Power Systems:
A power system can be mathematically represented by a set of
ordinary differential and algebraic equations of the type [3]:
) , u , z ( f z M =
) , u , z ( g 0 =
Where:
9
e
n
z represents the system state variables such as the
dynamic states of generators, loads, etc...,
9
e
n
u represents the algebraic variables corresponding to the
steady state element models,
9
e
l
represents a set of uncontrolled variable that drive the
system to voltage collapse,
) , u , z ( f represents a vector function of the differential
equations, g (z, u, ) groups all terms representing algebraic
equations.
M : is a constant positive definite matrix.



(1)
The 4th International Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2010), Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA. 23-24 June 2010
978-1-4244-7128-7/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE 7
The system model can be reduced by the term

) , z ( s ) ), , z ( h , z ( f z M = =


A saddle node bifurcation of the system (2) when the jacobian
) , z ( s
Dz
is singular at equilibrium point ) , (
0 0 z
where two
solutions of the system, stable and unstable, merge and then
disappear as the parameter , i.e. system load changes. At the
bifurcation point ) , (
0 0 z
, the jacobian ) , ( z s
Dz
has a
simple and unique zero eigenvalue with normalized right
eigenvector v and left eigenvector w.


| | 0 v v ) , ( s
0 ) , (
s
v ) , ( s
0 v ) , ( s
0 0
2
z
T
0 0
T
T
0 0 z
T
0 0 z
z D w
z w
0 z D w
z D
=
=
c
c
=
=

III. Continuation Power Flow (CPF):
Continuation methods are typically used to determine the
proximity to saddle node bifurcations in dynamic systems.
Continuation power flows trace the solution of the power flow
equation 0 = ) , z ( s , where the parameter stands for the
loading factor. The method can be summarized in two steps: [4]
- Predictor Step:
At a generic equilibrium point p, the following relation applies:
p p
p x
p
p p

f
+
d
dx
f = 0 =
d
df
0 = ) , ( f
D x



And the tangent vector can be approximated by:

p
p
p
p

d
dx
=
From (4) and (5)
x
D
p p p
p
1 -
p x p
=

f
f =
















At this point a step size control k has to be chosen for
determining the increment
x p p
and , along with a
normalization to avoid large steps when

p
is large:

=
p

p
k

= x
p
p

p
k

Where is the Euclidean norm and K= 1 .The sign of k

determines the increase or the decrease of . Figure 1 presents a
pictorial representation of the predictor step.

- Corrector Step:
In the corrector step, a set of n+1 equations is solved:

0 = ) , x (
0 = ) , x ( f

Where the solution of f must be in the bifurcation manifold and
is an additional equation to guarantee a non singular set at the
bifurcation point. For the choice of there are two options: the
perpendicular intersection q and the local parametrization.
In case of perpendicular intersection, whose pictorial
representation is depicted in Figure 2, the expression of
becomes:
( )
( )
0 ) , ( =
(
(

A
A +
(
(

A
A
=

q
p p c
p p c
T
p
p x x x x
x


Whereas for the local parametrization, either the parameter or a
variable xi is forced to be a fixed value:

( )

q
p p c
x A = ,
Or
( )
x x x pi pi ci
x A = q ,





















The choice of the variable to be fixed depends on the bifurcation
manifold of f, as depicted in Figure 3.






(2)
(3)
Figure 1: Continuation Power flow: predictor step
obtained by means of tangent
Figure 2: Continuation Power flow: corrector step
obtained by means of perpendicular
intersection.
(4)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(6)
( )
x p p
,
p

( )
x x p p p p
+ , +
( ) 0 = , x f
( )
x p p
,

p

( )
0 = , x f
90
0

( )
x c c
,
( )
( ) ) + -
, + -

x x x (
p p c
p p
c

8
.
























IV. FACTS Modeling
Each model is described by a set of differential algebraic
equations:

) , V , ( = Q
) , V , , ( = P
) , V , ( f =
) u , , V , , ( f =
x x
g
x x
g
x x x
x x x
s c
p
s c
p
s c s
s c c

Where:
x
c
is the control system variable,
xs
is the controlled sate variable (e.g firing angle)
V
and
u
are the voltage amplitude and phases at the buses at
which the components are connected.
u
represents the input control parameters, such as reference
power flows. FACTS models are based on what was proposed in
[2,5].

A. Static var compensator (SVC):

The model considered in this paper takes into account the _firing
angle, assuming a balanced, fundamental frequency operation.
Thus, the model can be developed with respect to a sinusoidal
voltage. The differential and algebraic equations are as follows:

( )
V b V
x
x
x
T
V K
T T
T
K
T
K
SVC
L
C
L
M ref M M
M
D
M
M M M
Q
K V K
V
2 2
2
2
1
) (
) 2 ( 2 sin 2
)) ( (
) (
o
t
t o o
o o
0 0
0 0
=

=
+ + =
=

B. Thyristor controlled series capacitors
(TCSC):
TCSC regulator is depicted in Fig. 5. The system undergoes to
the algebraic equations:

( )
( )
V V V
Q
V V V
Q
P P
V V P
m K m K
2
m
mK
m K m K
2
K
Km
Km mK
m K m K Km
- cos - =
) - cos( - B =
- =
- sin =



Where the indexes k and m denote the two buses at which the
TCSC is connected, and to the differential equations:



T
x x
T
T
x
T
x x x
T
x
P P K x
3
3 2
3
2
3
1
2 1 2
w
1
Km ref SI 1
) - ) - 1 (( =
) - ( =
- ) - ( =

V. Simulation Results
A IEEE 6- bus system is used for the objective of this study. A
single line diagram of the IEEE 6 bus test system is depicted in fig.
6. Using continuation power flow analysis, voltage stability of the
test system is investigated. The behaviour of the test system with
and without FACTS devices under different loading conditions is
Figure 3: Continuation Power flow: corrector
step obtained by means of local
parametrization.
Figure 5: Structure of an TCSC
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
x

Corrector
Corrector
Figure 4: Structure of an SVC

1 + s
T
K
M
M

( )
K T
T K
D 2
1
+ s
1 + s

-
+
V

Vref

M


min

max
1 + s
T
T K
w
w SI


x1

p
ref


max max c
,
-
+
1 + s
1
T1

( )
) 1 + s
1 + s
T
T
3
2

2 D S
p
x2

x3

min min c
,
,
xc
9
studied. The location of the FACTS devices is determined
through CPF. A typical PQ model is used for the loads and the
generator limits are ignored.























Voltage stability analysis is performed by starting from an initial
stable operating point and then increasing the loads by a factor
until singular point of power flow linearization is reached.
The loads are defined as

Q Q
P P
0 l
0 l
=
=

where
P0
and
Q
0
are the active and reactive base loads,
whereas
Pl
and
Q
l
are the active and reactive loads at bus l for
the current operating point as defined by .

A. Location of SVC and TCSC
The critical buses are identified as buses 4, 5 and 6 and their P-V
curve obtained through continuation method are shown in figure
7. Bus 4 has the weakest voltage profile and hence its profile is
needed to be improved using FACTS devices. Maximum loading
point or bifurcation point where the Jacobian matrix becomes
singular occurs at =11.168.
When SVC is connected at bus 4 we observe from figure 8 that
bus 4 has a flatter voltage profile and introducing SVC will
increase the L.P to the maximum value.
By inserting TCSC between buses 2 and 4, L.P for the system
occurs at higher load value than for the system without the
TCSC as shown in figure 9. The values of L.P ( ) without and
with SVC and TCSC are compared in table 1. From the table, it
is obvious that SVC gives the maximum L.P.

0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Lambda (p.u.)
V
o
lt
a
g
e

(
p
.
u
)
V
Bus4
V
Bus5
V
Bus6




Table 1: Loading parameter without and with SVC and TCSC.

Table 2 : Power flows limits


Table 2 illustrate the results of the N 1 contingency analysis
for the 6-bus test system. The output is organized in four
columns.
- The first column depicts the transmission line or
transformer while the second one shows for which line
outage it has been found the minimum power in that
line.
- The last two columns depict the actual power flow and
the power flow limit, respectively, in the transmission
line or transformer.
Whereas figure 10 shows the P-V curves at bus 4 for different
contingencies for the IEEE 6-bus
system.
Cases studied Lambda (p.u)
Base case 11.168.
With SVC 12.097
With TCSC 11.793
Line
Line
Outage
P
ij
[pu]
P
ij
max
[pu]
2-3

1-2 0.18015 0.0836
3-6

3-5 0.60305 0.49297
4-5

5-6 0.0944 0.03595
3-5

1-2 0.29583 0.33803
5-6

4-5 0.02387 0.00684
2-4

3-5 0.73085 0.58578
1-2

2-5 0.13494 0.08133
1-4

3-5 0.48362 0.39289
1-5

3-5 0.46144 0.37093
2-6

3-5 0.52929 0.42692
2-5

3-5 0.37145 0.29755
Figure 7 : PV curve for 6 bus system
without FACTS
Figure 6: 6- bus test system
Gen# 2
bus 1
bus 2
bus 3
bus 4
bus 5
bus 6
Gen# 1
L3
L1
L2

Gen# 3
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Lambda (p.u.)
V
o
lt
a
g
e
s

(
p
.
u
)
V
Bus4
V
Bus5
V
Bus6





0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Lambda (p.u.)
V
o
lt
a
g
e
s
(
p
.
u
)
V
Bus4
V
Bus5
V
Bus6





0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Lambda (pu)
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
p
u
)
Base case
Line 3-5 outage
Line 1-2 outage






B. Voltages Profiles and Power Losses in the system
Voltages profiles of base case and system with SVC and TCSC
are illustrated in figure 11. It is obviously from figure 11 SVC
provides a better voltage profile at the collapse point compared
to TCSC device. This is due to the reason that the SVC is
installed at the weakest bus.

Real and reactive power losses profiles of the system are shown
in figure 12 and 13, the increase of losses near the collapse point
is lowest in the case of SVC and highest in the case of TCSC.


1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Bus
V
o
l
t
a
g
e
s
(
p
.
u
)
Base Case
with TCSC
with SVC






1 2 3 4 5 6
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Bus
P
I
=
P
G
-
P
l

(
p
.
u
)
Base Case
with TCSC
with SVC






1 2 3 4 5 6
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Bus
Q
G
-
Q
l

(
p
.
u
)
Base Case
with TCSC
with SVC






C. Voltages Profiles for line 3-5 outage
Voltages profiles at the collapse point for line 3-5 outage and
system with SVC and TCSC are illustrated in figure 14. From
figure 14, SVC provides a better voltage profile at the collapse
point compared to TCSC.


Figure 8: PV curve with SVC at bus 4
Figure 11: Voltage Profile of system with SVC
and TCSC.
Figure 9: PV curve with TCSC between bus 2
and bus 4
Figure 12: Active power losses profile
with SVC and TCSC.
Figure 13: Reactive power losses profile
with SVC and TCSC.
Figure 10: PV curve at bus 4 for different
contingencies
11
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Bus
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
p
.
u
)
Line 3-5 outage
Line 3-5 outage with TCSC
Line 3-5 outage with SVC


D. Voltages Profiles for line line 1-2 outage

Voltages profiles at the collapse point for line 1-2 outage and
system with SVC and TCSC are illustrated in figure 15. From
figure 15, SVC provides a better voltage profile at the collapse
point compared to TCSC.

1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Bus
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
p
u
)
Line 1-2 outage
Line 1-2 outage avec TCSC
Line 1-2 outage avec SVC







VI. Conclusion
In this paper, voltage stability assessment of IEEE 6-bus test
system with SVC and TCSC is studies. It was found that these
devices significantly enhance the loading parameter of power
systems. SVC provide higher voltage stability margin than
TCSC. The test system requires reactive power the most at the
weakest bus. Introducing reactive power at this bus using SVC
can improve loading margin the most. TCSC, on the other hand,
are series compensation devices, which inject reactive power
through the connected line. This may not be effective when the
system required reactive power at the load level. SVC gives
better voltage profile and power losses compared to TCSC.


VII. References
[1] P. Kundur,, Power System Stability and Control,
McGrawHil, New York, 1994.
[2] A. Sode-Yome, N.Mithulananthan Static Voltage Stability
Margin Enhancement Using STATCOM, TCSC and SSSC,
IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
exhibition: Asia and Pacific Dalian, China, 2005.
[3] C.A. Canizares, Z. Faur, Analysis of SVC and TCSC
controllers in voltage collapse, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1999, pp. 158-165.
[4] Zeno T .Faur, Effects Of Facts Devices On System
loadibility, Proc.North American Power
Symposian.Bozeman,Montana, October 1995.
[5] R. Shizava, K. Nishida, T. Ohtaka and S. Iwamoto,
"Allocation of TCSC from Transient Stability Viewpoint,"
International Conference on Power Systems Technology,
November 2004.
[6] S. Gerbex, R.Cherkaoui and A.J.Germond, "Optimal
Location of FACTS Devices to Enhance Power System
Security," IEEE, 2003.
[7] M. A. Perez, A. R. Messina, and C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel,
"Application of FACTS Devices to Improve Steady State
Voltage Stability," IEEE, 2000.
[8] W.Zhang, F.Li and L.M.Tolbert, "Optimal Allocation of
Shunt Dynamic Var Source SVC and STATCOM: A
Survey", Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
37996-2100 USA
[9] C. A. Canizares, "Power flow and Transient Stability Models
of FACTS controllers for Voltage and Angle Stability
Studies," IEEEIPES WM Panel on Modeling, Simulation and
Applications of FACTS Controllers in Angle and Voltage
Stability Studies, Singapore, January 2000.
[10] M. Kowsalaya, K. K. Ray and D. P. Kothari Voltage
Stability Enhancement Through Optimal Location of Var
Compensator", ICSET, 2008.
[11] R. Shizava, K. Nishida, T. Ohtaka and S.
Iwamoto,Allocation of TCSC from transient Stability
Viewpoint, International conference on Power Systems
Technology, November 2004.



Oum El Fadhel Loubaba Bekri: was born in Saida, Algeria, received her
Bachelor (1986) and Engineers (1992) degree in Electrical Engineering from Sidi
Bel-Abbes University in Algeria, and her Master (2002) from ENSET, Oran,
Algeria. She worked in University Dr Moulay Tahar, Sada, Algeria from 1992
to 2009. She is currently a member of the Intelligent Control and Electrical
Power Systems Laboratory, Djillali Liabs, University, Sidi Bel Abbs, Algeria.
Her current research interest includes Power Systems and FACTS.


Mohammed Karim Fellah: was born in Oran, Algeria, in 1963. He received the
Eng. degree in Electrical Engineering from University of Sciences and
Technology, Oran, Algeria, in 1986, and The Ph.D. degree from National
Polytechnic Institute of Lorraine (Nancy, France) in 1991.
Since 1992, he is Professor at the University of Sidi-bel-Abbes (Algeria) and
Director of the Intelligent Control and Electrical Power Systems Laboratory at
this University. His current research interest includes Power Electronics, HVDC
links, and Drives.

Figure 14: Voltage Profile of line 3-5 outage with
SVC and TCSC.
Figure 15: Voltage Profile of line 1-2 outage with
SVC and TCSC.
12