International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

Impact of FACTS device in Electrical Power System

Sankalp Asawa

Sam Al-Attiyah

Department of Electrical Power Engineering

KTH Royal Institute of Technology
sankalpasawa@gmail.com

Department of Electrical Power Engineering

KTH Royal Institute of Technology
sam3@kth.se

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.

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.

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

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.

Figure 1: Basic SVC circuit

SVC is represented as a capacitor (

) in parallel with an
inductor (
) that is in series with two thyristor switches
( - ). 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.
generating reactive power). This is done by varying the

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

reactance through the use of the thyristor switches to switch
the inductor (
) 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 (
), the
slope of the SVC reactance ( ) and the current injected into
the bus at which SVC is installed (
) as seen in (1)

(1)

The dynamic model of the SVC can be represented as

shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 3: Basic TCSC Structure

The static model of the TCSC shown in Fig. 4 is installed

between BUS ( ) and BUS ( ). It is done by installing
it between BUS ( ) and a hypothetical BUS ( ). By
controlling the firing angle of the thyristors, TCSC can be
modelled as a variable series reactance
[6]. Active
power ( ) flowing from BUS i to BUS m is given by (4).
represent the line reactance and
is the angular
difference between phasor voltages of ( ) and ( ).
Figure 2: Dynamic model of SVC

In this model, the voltage at the bus (U) at which SVC is

installed is compared with the reference voltage (
) and
the POD Signal 1 (POD is discussed in section IV). It consists
of a voltage regulator which is of PI type, and the slope
is
included through a current feedback. In this paper, slope
is
neglected (i.e.
= 0). It consists of two gain parameters
( & ) through which signal is processed. Then it is
summed with POD signal 2, thus giving the output of the
regulator to be a variable reactance
. Equation (2)
describes the dynamic variance of
when POD Signal 1 is
used (i.e. Signal 2=0). The resulting reactive power at the bus
where the SVC is installed is given by (3) [6].
=

(2)
(3)

Since the system is limited by the maximum and minimum

values there is capping of maximum absorbed or injected
reactive power.
B. Thyristor Controlled Series Capcitor (TCSC)
TCSC can be considered as a variable reactance in series
with the transmission line. A TCSC device operates through
the use of a combination of a capacitor (
), an inductor
(
) and two thyristors ( - ) 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 (
) 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.

Figure 4: Steady-state model of TCSC

sin(

(4)

It is clear from (4) that the active power through the line in
steady state is dependent on
(equivalent reactance of
TCSC). Thus by varying
within limits active power
through the line can be controlled.

(5)

The dynamic model of the TCSC can be represented by

the block diagram shown in Fig. 5. Power control through the
line is done by passing real power (
) into the TCSC
control system and compared with the reference (
) and
Power Oscillation Damping signal 1. The next part of the
block represents the slope characteristics of the TCSC and it is
bound by the upper and lower limits of the system. The gain
is designed to tune the control to improve its properties [7].
Output is summed with POD signal 2 which is passes to the
lag block, where represents the time constant of the TCSC
device. If current control model is used instead of active
power flow model then
and
should be replaced by
equivalent
and
respectively [8].

Figure 5: Dynamic model of TCSC

978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

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 (
=
) 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

. It also provides voltage control and power
quality improvements through the shunt reactance [6]. The
shunt part ( ) acts like a STATCOM, but in UPFC it
exchanges real power. Fig. 6 shows the basic circuit diagram
of a UPFC.

the block diagrams used as model of the UPFC for simulation

of various results [1].

Figure 8: Block diagram of VSC 1 control

VSC 2

VSC 1

Figure 6: UPFC Circuit diagram

Figure 9: Block diagram of VSC 2 control

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)
comes from the exchange of active power
at the bus where shunt part is connected. Thus in steady
state,
=
[5].

The limitation in the reactive power is derived from the

rating
of the VSCs (6).
=
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].
= ( , , )
0= ( , , )

Figure 7: Injection Model of UPFC

Characteristics variables of injection model i.e.

,
,
and
are dependent on
and
. Compete
dependency of these variables is given in detail in [5].
For transient stability and small signal analysis, three
controllers are used. One for
and two for
and
which
are phase and quadrant component of
with .
=

cos(

=
=
=
)

+
+

(6)

sin(

Power through the line is used as an input signal for

and the voltage at BUS j is used for . Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 are
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

(7)

(8)

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
( )= ( )+ ( )
( )= ( )+ ( )

(9)

In the above representation ( ), ( ) and ( )

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

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

system. Each mode is associated with frequency and damping
as per the following equations.
:

+
=

:
:

(10)

| |

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].
=

(11)

With 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].
=

( )

(12)

Here, 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
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

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+TWs

1+T11s
1+T12s

1+T21s
1+T22s

SigOUT

KPOD

Figure 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

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
( , ,
,
) and the gain (KPOD) are tuned by the
residue method.
The residue of a transfer function,
expressed as in (13) [9].

( )=

, at

is
(13)

Figure 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]
=

( )

(14)

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

For small gain, the above expression can be rewritten as

(15)

( )

Thus, if a feedback transfer function is added to the

system, the ith eigen value will be changed as
= R H( , k)
Let:

(16)

= 180 arg ( )

(17)

In (19)
corresponds to the equivalent speed of rotation
of all the critical machines: these are the machines responsible
of the loss of synchronism of the system.
is the equivalent
speed of rotation of the non-critical machines [4].
B. Control Lyapunov Function (CLF)
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].
, ( ) = ( ),

(19)

For such systems, a CLF: V(x) is defined by

() ( )=0
( ) ( ) 0,
,
( ).
, ( )
0,

( ) ( )=

Then depending on the value of , the number of lead-lag

filter(s) (nf) can be selected based on the following, if
0 | | 60 = 1
60 | | 120 = 2
120 | | 180 = 1 and also set
=
arg( ) ,
=
Now the values of
can be obtained as

filter

= 1

,
=

(18)

to remove the second lead-lag

= 2
=


=

The above equations are also valid for a negative arg ( ),
but then = 180 arg ( ). The gain is chosen in order to
maximize the least of the damping ratios.
System behaviour varies with different input signals
chosen for POD. In this report two different input signals for
POD will discussed.
First signal used for POD is active power through a
particular transmission line. This corresponds to local
information and usually has a good observability [1]. Second
signal used is equivalent speed of rotation in the single
machine equivalent (SIME):
(19). This signal is a
gathering of many remote signals and therefore it has often a
poor observability but comparatively better damping [2].
=

978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

If V(x) is a CLF and if the control system can be

approximated by (21), then a good input signal for a feedback
control is given by (22) [5].

Figure 12: Trajectory of eigen value: Shifting of mode

(20)

(19)

( )+

( )=

(21)

( )

( ). ( )

1,

(22)

When considering a Single-Machine-Infinite-Bus system

[9], energy function can be considered as for CLF (23). It
consists of kinetic energy
and potential energy
function (

cos( )).
( )=

1
2

cos( ) +

(23)

Then the input signal based on the CLF law is:

=

( )

(24)

This signal (24) or its counterpart

= ( ) will
be used in the paper as input signals of the PODs. Further
analysis in this paper is done in terms of SIME equivalent
variables. Similar theoretical analysis can be applied to SIME
system to get equivalent input signals based on control
Lyapunov function. The theoretical backgrounds for these
derivations are described in detail in [2][5].
V.

SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS

The single line diagram of the power system on which

FACTS devices are installed is shown in Fig. 13. For this
system,
1. SVC is installed at bus 4
2. TCSC is installed between line is connected from bus
7 to bus 6.
3. UPFC is connected to bus 7, in series with the line
between bus 7 and bus 6.

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

Simulations were carried out by installing each of the
FACTS device on the given system (Fig. 13) separately.

TABLE 1: EIGEN VALUES

System

Inter-area Mode: Properties

POD

(%)

KPOD

0.642

00.159

--

No POD

-0.013

0.647

00.320

--

Input: P

-1.617

0.622

38.231

3.53

-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 FACTS

Input:

SVC

No POD

-0.048

0.689

01.111

--

Input: P

-0.583

0.701

13.116

0.004

-0.619

0.701

13.914

0.264

-2.464

0.604

54.456

Input:

TCSC

CLF(Signal 1)

Figure 13: Line diagram of system

A. Modal Analysis:
Linear modal analysis of the system provides information
about inter-area modes as well as of the oscillation of
generator 3 (Gen 3) against generator 1 (Gen 1) and generator
2 (Gen 2) (Fig. 14).

UPFC

-0.006

CLF(Signal 2)

-0.272

0.689

06.271

No POD

-0.033

0.675

00.778

CLF(Signal 1)

-1.839

0.574

45.426

CLF(Signal 2)

-0.435

0.610

11.277

--500,
-500
-500,
-500

TABLE 2: CONTROL SIGNAL

Device

Output Signal

Controllability

Observability

SVC

3.396648

10

5.768350

10

SVC

3.396651

10

9.546533

10

TCSC

4.853742

10

7.084980

10

TCSC

4.853742

10

6.495635

10

3.255327

10

UPFC

TABLE 3: TUNING PARAMETERS

System

SVC
Figure 14: Compass plot showing critical and non-critical machines with
no FACTS

The eigenvalue of the inter-area mode are calculated for

different controllers and devices for the chosen gain in Table I.
Table II show the calculated controllability and observability
for different devices and output signals. Tuning parameters of
lead-lag filters for different input signals for linear POD are
shown in Table III.
B. Fault Analysis:
Given system (Fig. 13) is simulated for two types of fault:
Small disturbance: Disconnection of the entire load at
BUS 5 from t=1000ms to t=1100ms.
Large disturbance: 3 phase fault at Bus 5 from
t=1000ms to t=1100ms.

978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

TCSC

Input
Signal
P14

Tuning Parameters
Number
T12
T21
T22
T11
Filters
2
0.0892 0.6791 0.0892 0.6791

SIME

0.2257

0.2681

P36

0.0976

0.5463

SIME

0.2448

0.2179

0.0976 0.5463
1

TW
5
5
5
5

Effect of FACTS device on the system can be seen by the

way system reacts with different control strategies i.e.
different POD signals in case of disturbance (Small and Large
Disturbance). These simulation for are presented in Fig. 15
and Fig. 18 for SVC, in Fig. 16 and Fig. 19 for TCSC and in
Fig. 17 and Fig. 20 for UPFC. Unless specified these
simulation were done by choosing POD signal as Signal 1 in
regulators of FACTS devices. It can be inferred from these
simulation that for different POD signals different power
oscillation damping is achieved.

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

Figure 15: SVC: Small disturbance

Figure 18: SVC: Large disturbance

Figure 16: Small Disturbance

No FACTS Device
CLF at Signal 1
CLF at Signal 2

1.5
1
0.5

SIME

(deg)

Figure 19: TCSC: Large disturbance

-0.5
-1
-1.5
0

Time(s)

10

Figure 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.
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

Figure 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 interarea 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 and
has a tendency to tend

International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016

Frequency

towards zero. Consistent with the theoretical aspects, in

simulation results maximum power oscillation damping was
achieved when non-linear POD signal (CLF) was used.

Figure 21: Shifting of mode (TCSC)

A much higher gain is needed for lead-lag (

)
compared to lead-lag (
) 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
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

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 systems
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 ngquist, HansPeter 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., ngquist, L., Ingestrm, 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. 147155.