PSZ l9:16 {Pind.

l/07}
rrllrlrFtll|t?r
'iFrrrr,At
A^r ll I I I ltal I
UNI YEIIJIII I ET\N\,'L\IgI lUlALA' JIA
NOTES : '* lf the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, pleose ottoch with the letter from
ihe ororrnisotion with neriocl ond reosons for conficlenliolitv or reciriclion
"- -'J
NFT-I APATINN {1F TIIFtIq i IINNFFGPANIIATF PPN IF'T PAPFP ANN CI.IPYPII?IJT
rrr-v.Yrvr.--.rv-rrrvr-Y
Author's fullnome :
Doie of birth :
Title :
SELVANTHERAN AN, GUNASEGARAN
I1 JLINE 1988
VOLTAGE PROFILE IMPROVEMENT IN TRANSMISSION
LINE USING FACTS DEVICES
Acodemic session:
2al1no12
thot this thesis is clossified os:
CONFIDENTIAI
{Contoins
confidentiol informction under the Officiol Secret
Act 1972|"
RESTRICTED
{Contoins
restricted informotion os specified by the
orgonisotion where reseorch wos done)'
OPEN ACCESS
i:grgg lf?t Tl.th"sis
to be published os online open
uL.:ue55
uuil
lextJ
I ocknowledged thot UniversitiTeknologiMoloysia reserves the right os follows:
l. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Moloysio.
2. The Librory of UniversiliTeknologiMoloysio hos the right io moke copies for the purpose
of reseorch only.
3. The Librory hos the right to moke copies of the thesis for ocodemic exchonge.
declore
t:]
tl
m
5IG?{ATUfrE
aQortr nt <21t
UUUVTI-UJ-JJ'
'
(NEW rC NO.
/PASSPORT
NO.)
Date:29e JLrNE 2012
Certified by:
?4u
SISNATURE OF SUFERV|sON
nD D ASr/rnAIr il,{rllr^ilr^n rrlDre
Ut\. l\^U I lvrul ltlvllry?ry luluu
Date;29& JUNE 2012
"I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinionthis thesis is
sufficicnt in tcrms of scopc and quality forthc award of Bachclor's Dcgrcc of
Electical Engineering"
siepature :........
fu;..b,
Nanre : DR RASYIDAII MOHAMAI) IDRIS
Date : 29e JUNE 2012

VOLTAGE PROFILE IMPROVEMENT IN TRANSMISSION LINE USING
FACTS DEVICES






SELVANTHERAN A/L GUNASEGARAN






This thesis is submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Bachelors Degree of Electrical Engineering




Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia




JUNE 2012
ll
"I hereby declare that this thesis entitled 'Voltage Profile Improvement in
Transmission Line using FACTS Devices' is the rezult of my own research except as
cited in the references which have beeir duly acknowledged.
Signature :......
W
Nane : SELVAIITIIf,RAN AIL GITNASEGARAN
Date : 29b JUNE,2012
iii















Special dedication and thanks to:

My beloved and inspired family
&
My loving and caring friends















iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT




First and foremost, praised to the Almighty God, for His blessings, finally, I
am able to complete my Final Year Project (FYP) successfully.


I would like to express my heartily gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Rasyidah
binti Mohamed Idris. Thank you very much for your endless support and
encouragement in teaching and guiding me throughout this project.


Last but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family members and my
friends and those whom involved directly or indirectly with my project. Thank you
very much again.



v
ABSTRACT




The purpose of this study is to design the steady-state model of Flexible AC
Transmission System (FACTS) devices and to determine the optimal allocation of
FACTS devices in a deregulated power system. The voltage instability in
transmission system is due to increasing load demand which require a suitable design
of new devices in deregulated power industry for flexible power transfer. Three
types of FACTS devices were used and modeled for the steady-state power flow
studies namely Static Var Compensator (SVC), Thyristor Controlled Series
Compensator (TCSC) and Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC). The modeling
and power flow analysis of these devices were performed on IEEE 9-bus test system
and implemented by using MATPOWER. The SVC is modeled as an ideal reactive
power injection at the bus where it is connected and its rated reactive power value is
determined. The TCSC is modeled to modify the reactance of transmission line and
its rated reactance value is determined. In this project, the steady-state model of
UPFC is modeled by the combination of SVC and TCSC steady-state models. The
optimal power flow analysis is done on a low voltage profile system with and
without using FACTS devices to compare the effectiveness of FACTS devices.
These FACTS devices were used to improve the low bus voltage profiles of power
system. The UPFC is the best choice among all the FACTS devices since it has
better voltage profile compared with other FACTS devices and able to control power
flow in transmission line effectively.





vi
ABSTRAK




Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mereka bentuk model keadaan mantap peranti
Fleksibel Sistem Penghantaran AC (FACTS) dan untuk menentukan peruntukan
optimum peranti FACTS dalam sistem kuasa yang dinyahkawalselia.
Ketidakstabilan voltan dalam sistem penghantaran adalah disebabkan oleh beban
permintaan yang semakin meningkat yang memerlukan reka bentuk yang sesuai bagi
peranti baru dalam industri kuasa dinyahkawalselia untuk pemindahan kuasa
fleksibel. Tiga jenis peranti FACTS telah digunakan dan dimodel untuk aliran
keadaan mantap kuasa mengkaji iaitu Statik Var pemampas (SVC), Thyristor
Kawalan Siri pemampas (TCSC), dan Pengawal Aliran Kuasa Bersepadu (UPFC).
Pemodelan dan analisis aliran kuasa peranti ini dilakukan ke atas sistem ujian IEEE
9-bas dan dilaksanakan dengan menggunakan MATPOWER. SVC ini dimodelkan
sebagai suntikan kuasa reaktif yang ideal di bas di mana ia disambung dan nilai
kuasa reaktif optimum ditentukan. TCSC dimodelkan untuk mengubah suai
regangan talian penghantaran dan nilai regangan optimum ditentukan. Dalam projek
ini, model keadaan mantap UPFC dimodelkan dengan menggabungkan model
keadaan mantap SVC dan TCSC. Analisis aliran kuasa optimum dilakukan pada
sistem profil voltan rendah dengan menggunakan dan tanpa menggunakan peranti
FACTS untuk membandingkan keberkesanan peranti FACTS. Peranti FACTS
tersebut telah digunakan untuk memperbaiki profil bas voltan rendah pada sistem
kuasa. UPFC adalah pilihan terbaik di kalangan semua peranti FACTS kerana ia
mempunyai profil voltan yang lebih baik berbanding dengan peranti FACTS yang
lain dan boleh mengawal pegaliran kuasa di talian penghantaran dengan efektif .



vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS




CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objectives of Project 3
1.4 Scope of Project 3
1.5 Outline of Thesis 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) 7
2.2.1 Categories of FACTS Controllers 8
viii
2.2.2 Benefits of using FACTS Devices 10
2.2.3 Role of FACTS Controllers 12
2.3 FACTS Devices 13
2.3.1 Static Var Compensator (SVC) 13
2.3.2 Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator
(TCSC)
15
2.3.3 Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) 17
2.3.3.1 Basic Operating Principles 18
2.3.3.2 Conventional Transmission
Capabilities
21
2.4 Power Transfer in Transmission Line 22
2.5 Objectives of Shunt Compensation 24
2.5.1 Ideal Shunt Compensation 24
2.5.2 Reactive Shunt Compensation to Prevent
Voltage Instability
26
2.6 Objectives of Series Compensation 27
2.6.1 Series Capacitive Compensation 27
2.6.2 Series Capacitive Compensation to
Prevent Voltage Instability
29
2.7 FACTS Applications 30
2.7.1 Parallel Power Flow 31
2.7.2 Increase Transmission Line Loading
Constraints
32
2.7.3 Reactive Power Support in Transmission
System
33

3 METHODLOGOGY 35
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Transmission Line Model 36
3.3 Modeling of SVC 38
3.4 Modeling of TCSC 40
3.5 Modeling of UPFC 41
3.6 Test System for Power Flow Analysis 43
ix
3.7 Basic Concept of Power Flow Analysis 44
3.7.1 Power Flow Chart 46
3.7.2 Procedure for Newton-Rahpson Power
Solution
47
3.8 Configuration of Test System for Power Flow
Analysis
48
3.9 Creating the Low Voltage Profile for Test System 50
3.10 Simulation With and Without FACTS Devices 52

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 53
4.1 Introduction 53
4.2 Power Flow Analysis on Original Test System 53
4.3 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System 55
4.4 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System
after Incorporating SVC
57
4.5 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System
after Incorporating TCSC
58
4.6 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System
after Incorporating UPFC
60
4.7 Comparison of Power Flow Analysis with and
without FACTS Devices
62

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69
5.1 Introduction 69
5.2 Conclusion 70
5.3 Recommendations 71

REFERENCES 73

APPENDICES 78-90


x
LIST OF TABLES




TABLE TITLE PAGE
2.1 The role of FACTS controllers in power system operation 12
3.1 (a) Configuration for original 9-bus test system of bus dat 49
3.2 (b) Configuration for original 9-bus test system of branch data 49
4.1 (a) Power flow result for original IEEE 9-bus test system of bus
data
54
4.1 (b) Power flow result for original IEEE 9-bus test system of
branch data
54
4.2 (a) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system of bus
data
56
4.2 (b) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system of
branch data
56
4.3 (a) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating SVC at bus 9 of bus data
57
4.3 (b) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating SVC at bus 9 of branch data
58
4.4 (a) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating TCSC between bus 4 and 9 of bus data
59
4.4 (b) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating TCSC between bus 4 and 9 of branch data
59
4.5 (a) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating UPFC between bus 4 and 9 of bus data
60
4.5 (b) Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating UPFC between bus 4 and 9 of branch data
61
5.1 The rated value and optimal location of each FACTS device 71
xi
LIST OF FIGURES




FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.1 General symbol of FACTS controller 7
2.2 (a) Series controller 8
2.2 (b) Shunt controller 8
2.2 (c) Combined series-series controller 8
2.2 (d) Combined series-shunt controller 8
2.3 (a) SVC scheme 14
2.3 (b) SVC scheme with coupling transformer 14
2.4 (a) Voltage-current characteristic of SVC 14
2.4 (b) Voltage-reactive power characteristic of SVC 15
2.5 TCSC scheme 16
2.6 The impedance characteristic of TCSC 17
2.7 The UPFC two back-to-back voltage sourced converters 18
2.8 UPFC representation in a two-machine power system 19
2.9 Transmittable real and reactive power vs transmission angle 20
2.10 (a) Phasor diagram of UPFC control capabilities: Voltage
regulation
21
2.10 (b) Line impedance compensation 21
2.10 (c) Phase shifting 21
2.10 (d) Simultaneous control of voltage, impedance and angle 21
2.11 Transmission line 22
2.12 Transmitted power vs power angle 23
2.13 (a) Two-machine power system with ideal midpoint reactive
compensator
24
xii
2.13 (b) Corresponding phasor diagram 24
2.15 (a) Variation of voltage stability limit with load and power
factor
26
2.15 (b) Extension of voltage stability limit with reactive shunt
compensation
26
2.16 (a) Two-machine power system with series capacitive
compensation
27
2.16 (b) Corresponding phasor diagram 27
2.17 Real power and series capacitor reactive power vs angle
characteristics
29
2.18 (a) Simple radial system with series capacitive compensation 30
2.18 (b) Normalized terminal voltage vs power at different degree of
compensation
30
2.19 Parallel power flow 31
2.20 (a) Power flow in transmission line 32
2.20 (b) Phasor diagram 32
2.21 Lumped element representation of transmission line 33
3.1 Lumped - equivalent circuit of medium transmission line 36
3.2 (a) The SVC model 39
3.2 (b) Inductive and capacitive characteristic of SVC model 39
3.3 (a) The TCSC model 40
3.3 (b) Inductive and capacitive characteristic of TCSC 40
3.4 The UPFC model 42
3.5 IEEE 9-bus test system 43
3.6 Flow chart for Newton-Raphson power flow analysis 46
3.7 Reactive power increase at bus 9 50
3.8 (a) Power flow across line 51
3.8 (b) Phasor representation 51
4.1 Bus voltage profile with and without FACTS device 63
4.2 (a) Real power line loss with and without FACTS devices 65
4.2 (b) Reactive power line loss with and without FACTS devices 66
4.3 Total real and reactive power line loss with and without
FACTS devices
67
4.4 Total real and reactive power generation with and without
FACTS devices
68
xiii




LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS




FACTS - Flexible AC Transmission System
IPC

- Interphase Power Controller
IPFC - Interline Power Flow Controller
SSSC - Static Synchronous Series Compensator
STATCCOM - Static Synchronous Compensator
SVC - Static Var Compensator
TCPST - Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifting Transformer
TCR - Thyristor Controlled Reactor
TCSC - Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator
TCSR - Thyristor-Controlled Series Reactor
TSSR - Thyristor-Switched Series Reactor
UPFC - Unified Power Flow Controller











xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS




B - Susceptance of line
G - Conductance of line
I - Current
k - Degree of compensation
P - Real power
pu - Per unit
Q - Reactive power
R - Resistance of line
X - Reactance of line
Z - Impedance of line
- Power angle
- Phase angle
- Impedance angle
V - Voltage increment
P
i
sch
- Specified real power
Q
i
sch
- Specified reactive power
P
i
(k)
- Real power residual
Q
i
(k)
- Reactive power residual
I
sm
- Line segment current
I
SVC
- Current of SVC
Q
C
- Capacitor reactive power
Q
r
- Transmitted reactive power
Q
SVC
- Reactive power of SVC
xv
V
C
- Capacitive voltage
V
k
- Terminal voltage
V
m
- Midpoint voltage
V
pq
- Voltage phasor with controllable magnitude
V
q
- Series reactive compensation voltage
V
r
- Receiving-end voltage
V
s
- Sending-end voltage
V
sm
- Line segment voltage
V
SVC
- Voltage of SVC
V

- Phase shift voltage

V
x
- Total voltage across the series line inductance
X
C
- Capacitive reactance
X
eff
- Effective transmission impedance
X
ij
- Effective resistance of line
X
L
- Reactance of transmission line
X
TCSC
- Reactance of TCSC













xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES




APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
1a MATPOWER coding for original IEEE 9-bus test
system
78
1b MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test
system
79
1c MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test
system to incorporate SVC
80
1d MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test
system to incorporate TCSC
82
1e MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test
system to incorporate UPFC
83
2a Power flow result of original IEEE 9-bus test system 86
2b Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system 87
2c Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system
after incorporating SVC at bus 9 and SVC reactive
power, Q
k
= -100 MVAR
88
2d Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system
after incorporating TCSC at branch 9 and degree of
compensation, k = -0.7
89
2e Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system
after incorporating UPFC at branch 9 and at degree of
compensation, k = -0.7 and reactive power Q
k
= -100
MVAR
90


1
CHAPTER 1




INTRODUCTION




1.1. Background


Flexible Alternative Current Transmission Systems (FACTS) is a new
technological development in electrical power industry. The FACTS technology
concept was first introduced in late 1980s by N.G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi [1]. The
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) introduces the FACTS which is a new
approach to solve the problem of deregulation in power system. The fast
development of power electronics technology has made FACTS a promising means
for future power system needs [1-5].


The main objectives of FACTS are to increase the power transmission
capability, voltage control, voltage stability enhancement and power system
improvement [1-3]. FACTS devices provide an alternative method to the
transmission system expansion by increasing the usage of existing facilities towards
their thermal limits. FACTS devices can offer benefits in improving the system
transmission capacity and power flow control flexibility [1-6].
2
FACTS devices have ability to control the fundamental parameters of
transmission systems which are series and shunt impedance, current, voltage and
phase angle. A well- selected FACTS device can solve the specific limitation of the
selected transmission line. It becomes more important to control the power flow
along transmission line with the development of power industry to meet the needs of
flexible power transfer [6-9].




1.2 Problem Statement


Todays power systems are highly complex and require suitable design of
new devices in deregulated electric power industry for flexible power transfer. The
transmission system becomes more stressed due to increase in demand which makes
the system more vulnerable to voltage instability and leads to blackouts [4-7].
Voltage stability becomes a crucial issue in the operation and planning of todays
power systems which are heavily loaded, faulted or shortage of reactive power.
Voltage collapse in interconnected system can lead to the case of unacceptable low
voltage condition in the network which is beyond the acceptable limit. Voltage
instability in the system is due to increasing load which leads to excessive demand of
reactive power. This excessive demand of reactive power can leads to voltage
collapse in the system if there is not sufficient support of reactive power [6-15].


Some of the examples of operating problems to which the unregulated power
system may arise are: instability of system, high transmission losses, power flow
loops, voltage limit violations, inability to utilize transmission line capability up to
the thermal limit and cascade tripping. Traditionally, such problems have been
solved by building new power plants and transmission lines which is costly to
implement and involves long construction time. With the new technology and by
using the latest power electronic equipment and methods, these problems can be
solved by upgrading the existing transmission lines by installing FACTS devices in
3
the system [11-16]. The FACTS devices are highly expensive to install in
transmission line, therefore choosing the right FACTS device and allocate them at
the optimal location to improve the voltage profile is the main issue in this research.




1.3 Objectives of Project


The objectives of this project are as follows:

i. To develop the steady-state model of Static Var Compensator (SVC),
Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC) and Unified Power
Flow Controller (UPFC).
ii. To find the optimal allocation of FACTS devices in transmission
system and their rated value.
iii. To improve the low voltage profile of test system by using FACTS
devices.
iv. To compare the optimal power flow analysis with and without using
FACTS devices on the test system.




1.4 Scope of Project


In this project, there are three types of steady-state models of FACTS devices
were developed which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC. The power flow studies for these
models were implemented using MATPOWER version 4.0 together with MATLAB
version 7.6 [10]. Only single-type FACTS devices were used at one time to do the
power flow analysis on the test system.

4
The SVC is modeled as an ideal reactive power injection at the bus where it is
connected. The working range of SVC is controlled between -100 MVAR and 100
MVAR [17-19].


The TCSC is modeled to modify the reactance of transmission line. The
working range of TCSC reactance is controlled between -70% and 20% of the
reactance of transmission line [17-19].


In this project, the steady-state model of UPFC is modeled with the
combination of SVC and TCSC models. Therefore, its operational limits are based
on them [17-19].




1.5 Outline of Thesis


This thesis consists of five chapters which are introduction, literature review,
methodology, result and discussion and conclusion and recommendations.


In Chapter 2, it will discuss more on theory and literature review that have
been done related to this project. This chapter introduces the different type of
FACTS devices and their categories and benefits of using these FACTS devices. It
will further discuss the concept of series compensation and shunt compensation and
the potential applications of FACTS devices in power system.




5
In Chapter 3, it will discuss the research methodology that has been done to
complete this project. In this chapter, the steady-state modelling of three types of
FACTS devices which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC will be discussed. How the rated
value of each FACTS device and their optimal allocation in transmission system
were found will be explained in detail in this chapter.


In Chapter 4, the results and discussions of this project will be presented.
The comparison of power flow analysis with and without using FACTS devices will
discussed here.


In Chapter 5, the conclusion and recommendations for future research are
presented. This chapter concludes that the FACTS devices can be used to improve
voltage profile of power system.
6
CHAPTER 2




LITERATURE REVIEW




2.1 Introduction


This chapter introduces different types of FACTS devices and benefits of
using these FACTS devices. Only the three types of FACTS devices which are SVC,
TCSC and UPFC will be explained in detail in this chapter since only these FACTS
types are considered in this project. Some theories and equations related to power
flow control in transmission line and how these FACTS devices can influence these
parameters will be presented in here. Then, the objectives of reactive shunt
compensation and series capacitive compensation and how this concept was applied
to solve the voltage instability problems in power system will be discussed here.
Finally, the potential application of FACTS devices will be presented.
7
2.2 Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS)


Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) is based on power-electronic
controllers, which improve the transmission system parameters by increasing the
power transfer capacity and controllability. FACTS technology enables current
through transmission line to be controlled at economical way. FACTS devices
control power flow through transmission lines under normal and contingency
conditions. A well-chosen FACTS device can solve the problem of limitations of the
transmission line [1-8].


With the fast advancement in power electronics, FACTS devices become
more charismatic for long distance power transmission lately. FACTS devices have
a large potential ability to make power systems operate in a more flexible, secure and
economic way. The possibility of operating power systems at the minimal cost while
satisfying specified transmission and security constraints is one of the main current
issues in stretching transmission capacity by the use of FACTS devices [20-31].


FACTS devices are used to upgrade existing power system without the
additions of substations, transmission lines and building new power plants to avoid
cost intensive or landscape extensions. The two main objectives of FACTS
controllers are to increase power transfer capability of transmission system and to
control power flow over designated transmission line. The Figure 2.1 below shows
the general symbol of FACTS controller [1-5].



Figure 2.1 General symbol of FACTS controller


8
2.2.1 Categories of FACTS Controllers


In general, the FACTS controllers can be divided into four main categories.
The Figure 2.2 below illustrates all the four categories of FACTS controllers which
are series controllers, shunt controllers, combined series-series controllers and
combined series-shunt controllers [1-4].







(a)


(b)

(c)


(d)

Figure 2.2 (a) Series controller (b) Shunt controller (c) Combined series-series
controller (d) Combined series-shunt controller


i. Series Controllers:
These controllers could be variable impedance, such as reactor, capacitor or a
power electronics based variable source of main frequency, sub synchronous and
harmonic frequencies to serve the desired need. They inject voltage in series with
the transmission line. The series controller only consumes or supplies variable
reactive power if the voltage is in phase quadrature with line current [1-3].
9
ii. Shunt Controllers:
These controllers may be variable impedance, variable source, or a
combination of these. They inject current into the system at the point of connection.
Even variable shunt impedance connected to the line voltage causes a variable
current flow. These controllers only supplies or consumes variable reactive power if
the voltage is in phase quadrature with line current [1-3].


iii. Combined series-series Controllers:
These could be a combination of separate series controllers, which are
controlled in a coordinated manner. It could be a unified controller, which series
controllers provide independent series reactive compensation for each line but also
transmit real power among the lines via the power link. The real power transfer
capability of the unified series-series controller makes it possible to balance both the
real and reactive power flow in the lines [1-3].


iv. Combined series-shunt Controllers:
These could be a combination of separate series and shunt controllers, which
are controlled in a coordinated manner or a controller with series and shunt elements.
They inject current into the system with the shunt part of the controller and voltage in
series in the line with the series part of the controller. There can be a real power
exchange between the series and shunt controllers via the power link when the series
and shunt controllers are unified [1-3].










10
2.2.2 Benefits of using FACTS Devices


Below are some of the benefits using FACTS devices in power system [1-24]:


i. Better utilization of existing transmission system assets
In a deregulated environment, where the location of generation and bulk load
centres changes rapidly, so increasing the energy transfer capability and
controlling the load flow of transmission lines are very important. Adding a
new transmission line frequently to meet the increasing electricity demand is
restricted by economical and environmental constraints. FACTS devices help
to upgrade existing transmission lines without construction of new power
plants and transmission lines.


ii. Increase power systems reliability and availability
Many different factors can affect the power systems reliability and
availability. FACTS devices can mitigate the effects of faults and make
electricity supply more secure by reducing the number of line trips or
blackouts even though they cannot prevent faults from occurring.


iii. Increase dynamic and transient grid stability
Interconnected grid, long transmission line, continuously changing loads and
faults in line can create instabilities in power systems. These can lead to
power flow loops, power loss in transmission line and cascading trips.
Utilizing FACTS devices help to stabilize power system at reduced cost and
increase available transfer capability. It will raise the transient stability limit,
damping electromechanical oscillations of power systems and limiting short
circuit and overloads.



11
iv. Lower the cost of power generation
FACTS devices utilization can increase the power flow through the lines and
allow better use of generation capacity. The choice of transmission line in
which the device is installed will determine the degree of success to transfer
more active power. The devices can reduce reactive flow in line, thus
allowing more active power flow. These devices also protect the
transmission line from overloading while allowing remaining lines to be more
heavily utilized and this allows lowering the production cost.


v. Increase quality of power supply
Nowadays, voltage sag is one of the problems faced in industry and it is
ranged from several milliseconds to seconds. This momentary drop in
voltage supply can cause severe failure to the manufacturing industries.
FACTS devices are installed in transmission line to solve the voltage sag
problem and to provide continuous high quality power.


vi. Increase the power transfer capability
FACTS devices can increase power transfer capacity in heavily loaded
network because of its ability to control power flow. The device can increase
further the existing loading capability of lines up to their thermal limits. This
can be achieved by overcoming other limitations and sharing of power among
lines according to their capability.


vii. Reduce power flow loops
The FACTS devices are placed in transmission lines to prevent loop flows
depend on the location of loop flows. The power flow in the lines is forced to
zero or sent in the opposite direction of the loop flow.




12
2.2.3 Role of FACTS Controllers


The application of FACTS controllers to the solutions of steady state
operating problems in power system is outlined in Table 2.1 [1].


Table 2.1: The role of FACTS controllers in power system operation
Operating problem Corrective action FACTS controller
Voltage limits:
Low voltage at heavy load Supply reactive power STATCOM, SVC,
High voltage at low load Absorb reactive power
STATCOM, SVC,
TCR
High voltage following an
outage
Absorb reactive power;
prevent overload
STATCOM,
SVC,TCR
Low voltage following an
outage
Supply reactive power;
prevent overload
STATCOM, SVC
Thermal limits:
Transmission circuit
overload
Reduce overload
TCSC, SSSC, UPFC,
IPC, PS
Tripping of parallel circuits Limit circuit loading TCSC, SSSC, UPFC,
IPC
Loop flows:
Parallel line load sharing Adjust series reactance IPC, SSSC, UPFC,
TCSC
Post-fault power flow
sharing
Rearrange network /use
thermal limit actions
IPC, TCSC, SSSC,
UPFC
Power flow direction
reversal
Adjust phase angle IPC, SSSC, UPFC




13
2.3 FACTS Devices


There are various types of FACTS devices are available in market which can
be categorized into four main categories. First, the examples of series connected
controllers are Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC), Thyristor Controlled
Series Compensator (TCSC), Thyristor-Switched Series Capacitor (TSSC),
Thyristor-Controlled Series Reactor (TCSR) and Thyristor-Switched Series Reactor
(TSSR). Some of the examples of shunt controllers are Static Synchronous
Compensator (STATCOM), Static Var Compensator (SVC) and Thyristor Controlled
Reactor (TCR). The examples of series-shunt controllers are Unified Power Flow
Controller (UPFC) and Thyristor-Controlled Phase Shifting Transformer (TCPST).
An example of combined series-series controller is Interline Power Flow Controller
(IPFC) [1-5]. In this project, only the three types of FACTS devices are considered
which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC so, only the description about these devices will be
explained in next section.




2.3.1 Static Var Compensator (SVC)


SVC is a shunt-connected static Var absorber or generator whose output is
controlled to deliver inductive or capacitive current so as to maintain or control
specific parameters of the power system, usually terminal voltage. It is widely used
to supply fast reactive power compensation and voltage regulation support by
increasing power transmission capability in a power transmission system. Firstly, it
was used for arc furnace flicker compensation and then started to use in power
system. It is considered as a lower cost alternative to STATCOM. The Figure 2.3
(a) shows the diagram of SVC and Figure 2.3 (b) shows SVC scheme with coupling
transformer [2-5].

14

(a) (b)
Figure 2.3 (a) SVC scheme (b) SVC scheme with coupling transformer


The steady-state and dynamic characteristics of SVC describe the variation of
SVC bus voltage with SVC current or reactive power. The Figure 2.4 (a) shows the
voltage and current characteristic of SVC and Figure 2.4 (b) shows the voltage and
reactive power of SVC. The steady-state characteristic of the SVC is similar to the
dynamic characteristic except there is a dead band in voltage [2-5].



(a)
15

(b)
Figure 2.4 (a) Voltage-current characteristic of SVC (b) Voltage-reactive power
characteristic of SVC


V
ref
is the reference voltage when SVC is neither generating nor absorbing
any reactive power. The reference voltage can be varied between maximum V
1
and
minimum V
2
limits by the SVC control system. The control range where SVC
terminal voltage varies linearly with SVC current or reactive power in inductive and
capacitive region is the Linear Range of Control. In Overload Range, the SVC enters
the overload zone when it travels outside the linear controllable range on inductive
region where it acts like a fixed inductor. The Over current Limit is the maximum
inductive current in overload range is constrained to a constant value to prevent the
excessive thermal stress to thyristor valves [2-5].










16
2.3.2 Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC)


TCSC is a capacitive reactance compensator which consists of a series
capacitor bank shunted by a thyristor-controlled reactor which can supply smoothly
variable series capacitive reactance. The TCSC is added to long AC transmission
line to increase the loading of capability of existing line in order to control power
flow in line. TCSC can vary the impedance of transmission line up to thermal limit
which can generate reactive power that increases with line loading which can provide
voltage support. The Figure 2.5 shows the basic TCSC scheme to provide
continuously variable capacitor by cancelling a part of compensating capacitance [2-
5].



Figure 2.5 TCSC scheme


The TCSC has two operating regions, where the reactance can be operate
either in inductive region or capacitive region. These TCSC impedance characteristic
is illustrated in Figure 2.6 [2-5].


17

Figure 2.6 The impedance characteristic of TCSC




2.3.3 Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)


Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is based on back-to-back voltage
source arrangement. The first controller is arranged in series and the other is in shunt
with transmission line. UPFC is able to control simultaneously or selectively
voltage, impedance and phase angle of transmission line. It also independently
controls both real and reactive power flow in line [20-30].



18
For practical use, the UPFC consists of two voltage-sourced converters as
shown in Figure 2.7. These converters are operated from a common dc link supplied
by dc storage capacitor. Converter 2 controls power flow by injecting an ac
controllable voltage V
pq
and phase angle in series with the transmission line via a
series transformer. Converter 1 absorbs or supplies the real power demand by
converter 2 at the common dc link. It also can provide reactive power compensation
by generating or absorbing controllable reactive power [20-30].



Figure 2.7 The UPFC two back-to-back voltage sourced converters




2.3.3.1 Basic Operating Principles


UPFC is generalized synchronous voltage source (SVS) and represented in
Figure 2.8 by voltage phasor V
pq
with controllable magnitude (0 V
pq
V
pqmax
) and
angle (0 2) in series with the transmission line. The SVS actually
exchanges both real and reactive power with the transmission system [2].

19

Figure 2.8 UPFC representation in a two-machine power system


By referring to Figure 2.8, the transmitted real power P and reactive power jQ
r
at
the receiving-end is:

P jQ
r
= V
r

(2.1)

If V
pq
= 0, for uncompensated system, then the equation (2.1) becomes:

P jQ
r
= V
r

(2.2)

If V
pq
0, the equation (2.2) can be rewritten as:

P jQ
r
= V
r

(2.3)

Substituting
V
s
= V
/2
= V cos

2
+ sin

2
; (2.4)
and
V
r
= V
/2
= V cos

2
sin

2
; (2.5)

V
pq
= V
pq

(

2
+ )
= V
pq
cos

2
+ + sin

2
+ (2.6)
20
P(,) = P
0
() + P
pq
() =

sin -

cos

2
+ (2.7)

Q
r
(,) = Q
0r
() + Q
pq
() =

(1 - cos ) -

sin

2
+ (2.8)

where P
0
() =

sin (2.9)

and Q
0r
() =

(1 - cos ) (2.10)


P
0
() and Q
0r
() are the real and reactive power transmission of
uncompensated system at given angle . P
0
() and Q
0r
() are controllable between
VV
pq
/X and +VV
pq
/X independent of angle , since angle is can be varied between
0 and 2 at any given transmission angle (0 ). The Figure 2.9 below shows
the transmittable real and reactive power relationship with transmission angle [1-5].



Figure 2.9 Transmittable real and reactive power vs transmission angle


21
2.3.3.2 Conventional Transmission Capabilities


The Figure 2.10 below shows the basic UPFC power flow control functions.
The Figure 2.10 (a) shows the voltage regulation with variable voltage injection for
voltage increments V
pq
= V. Figure 2.10 (b) shows series reactive compensation
where V
pq
= V
q
is injected in quadrature with line current I. Figure 2.10 (c) shows
phase angle regulation where V
pq
= V

is injected with angular relationship with

respect to V
s
. Figure 2.10 (d) shows multifunction power flow control by combining
simultaneous voltage regulation, line impedance compensation and phase shifting,
where V
pq
= V + V
q
+ V

[2].



(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 2.10 Phasor diagram of UPFC control capabilities (a) Voltage regulation
(b) Line impedance compensation (c) Phase shifting (d) Simultaneous control of
voltage, impedance and angle







22
2.4 Power Transfer in Transmission Line


The installations of FACTS devices in power system enable to control the
active and reactive power flow in transmission line. The Figure 2.11 below shows
the transmission line model which is used to derive the power transfers along the
transmission line [32-34].



Figure 2.11 Transmission line


Referring to Figure 2.11, the complex power at sending-end is:

S
S
= V
S
I* = V
S

V
S

(2.11)

S
S
=

S
V
S

S

V
S

(2.12)

Since
S

R
= , power angle;

S
S
=

+ (2.13)

SS =

(cos + sin) -

{cos (+) + j sin ( +)} (2.14)

SS =

cos

cos( +) + j

sin

sin( +) (2.15)


23
If R= 0, then Z = jX = X90, so the real and reactive power at sending-end is:

P
S
=

sin and Q
S
=

cos (2.16)

Similarly, the complex power at receiving-end is S
R
= V
R
I ;

Hence, P
R
= P
S
=

sin and Q
R
=

cos -

(2.17)

From the equations (2.16) and (2.17), it can be observed that the transmitted
power can be controlled by changing magnitude of terminal voltages, line reactance
and power angle. The relationship between real power P and reactive power Q and
angle are shown in Figure 2.12. Therefore, FACTS devices can control those
parameters independently or simultaneously to increase transmitted power along the
transmission line [34].



Figure 2.12 Transmitted power vs power angle




24
2.5 Objectives of Shunt Compensation


Reactive shunt compensation can increase transmitted power and improve
voltage profile along transmission line. Reactive compensation will change the
natural characteristics of transmission line to meet the high load demand. Shunt
connected reactors are used to minimize line overvoltage under light conditions; on
the other hand shunt connected capacitors are used to maintain voltage levels under
heavy load conditions. Var compensation is used for voltage regulation to prevent
voltage instability, increase transient stability and damp power oscillations [1-5].




2.5.1 Ideal Shunt Compensation


The Figure 2.13 (a) shows an ideal var compensator is shunt connected at the
midpoint of two-machine transmission line and Figure 2.13 (b) shows corresponding
phasor diagram. The compensator is represented by a sinusoidal ac voltage source,
in phase with midpoint voltage, V
m
and equals to the sending and receiving-end
voltages (V
m
= V
s
= V
r
=V). The compensator segments the line into two parts: each
having X/2 impedances [1-5].


(a) (b)
Figure 2.13 (a) Two-machine power system with ideal midpoint reactive
compensator (b) Corresponding phasor diagram
25
The compensator switches only reactive power with the transmission line.
The real power is assumed same at each terminal of the line for the lossless system
and can be derived from the phasor diagram in Figure 2.13 (b).

V
sm
= V
mr
= V cos

4
I
sm
= I
mr
= I =
4

sin

4
(2.18)

P = V
sm
I
sm
= V
mr
I
mr
= V
m
I
sm
cos

4
= VI cos

4
(2.19)

P = 2
V
2
X
sin

2
(2.20)

Q = VI sin

4
= 4
V
2
X
1

2
(2.21)

The relationship between real power, P reactive power, Q and angle, for the
ideal compensation is shown in Figure 2.14. The midpoint shunt compensation can
increase the transfer power by doubling its maximum value by increasing reactive
power demand on midpoint compensator [2-5].



Figure 2.14 Power Transmission vs angle characteristic showing the variation of
real power P
p
and reactive power Q
p
output of compensator



26
2.5.2 Reactive Shunt Compensation to Prevent Voltage Instability


The voltage stability limits increases with capacitive loads and decreases with
inductive loads. The Figure 2.15 (a) shows a simple radial system with feeder line
reactance, X and load impedance, Z and plot of terminal voltage, V
r
(pu) versus
power, P at different power factors. The Figure 2.15 (b) shows that shunt
compensation can effectively increase the voltage stability limit by regulating the
terminal voltage and supplying the reactive load [2-5].



Figure 2.15 (a) Variation of voltage stability limit with load and power factor (b)
Extension of voltage stability limit with reactive shunt compensation


Reactive shunt compensation is used to regulate the bus voltage due to load
variations when the generated power is inadequate to provide growing load demand
which can prevent voltage collapse in power system. Theoretically, reactive shunt
compensation enables transmit power up to thermal limit of the line [2-5].
27
2.6 Objectives of Series Compensation


With the use of FACTS devices, it has been shown that variable series
compensation is highly effective in controlling power flow in the line by decreasing
transfer reactance of line. Series line compensation is used to control power flow in
the lines, improve voltage and angular stability and prevent loop flows [2-5].




2.6.1 Series Capacitive Compensation


The main purpose of series capacitive compensation is to decrease the overall
effective series transmission impedance of line, X. The Figure 2.16 (a) shows the
two-machine power system with series capacitor compensated line which composed
of two identical segments and its corresponding phasor diagram is shown in Figure
2.16 (b). The magnitude of the total voltage across the series line inductance, V
x
=
2V
x/2
is increased by the magnitude of V
C
developed across the series capacitor and
this cause an increase in line current [1-5].



Figure 2.16 (a) Two-machine power system with series capacitive compensation
(b) Corresponding phasor diagram


28
The effective transmission impedance X
eff
with series capacitive compensation is:

X
eff
= X - X
C
(2.22)

X
eff
also can be rewritten as:

X
eff
= (1-k) X (2.23)

where k is the degree of series compensation,

k = X
C
/X 0 k < 1 (2.24)

Assuming V
s
= V
r
= V, the current in the compensated line, I and the corresponding
real power transmitted, P can developed as:

I =
2
(1)
sin

2
(2.25)

P = V
m
I =
V
2
(1k)X
sin (2.26)

The reactive power, Q
C
supplied by the series capacitor is:

Q
C
= I
2
X
C
=
2
2

(1)
(1- cos ) (2.27)


The Figure 2.17 shows the relationship between the real power, P series
capacitor reactive power, Q
C
and angle, plotted at various degree of compensation,
k. From Figure 2.17, it can seen that the transmitted power, P
s
and the reactive
power supplied by series capacitor increases with degree of compensation, k. The
effective transmission impedance is reduced as the line is physically shortened
because the impedance of series compensating capacitor cancels a part of original
line reactance [2-6].

29

Figure 2.17 Real power and series capacitor reactive power vs angle
characteristics




2.6.2 Series Capacitive Compensation to Prevent Voltage Instability


Series capacitive compensation can be used to decrease the series reactive
impedance to prevent voltage collapse in power system. The Figure 2.18 (a) shows a
simple system with line reactance X, series compensating reactance X
C
and load
impedance Z and Figure 2.18 (b) shows the corresponding terminal voltage V
r
(pu)
versus power P plot with unity power factor at different degree of compensation.
From these figure, it can observe that series capacitive compensation effectively
increase the voltage stability limit by cancelling a part of line reactance [2-5].



30

Figure 2.18 (a) Simple radial system with series capacitive compensation (b)
Normalized terminal voltage vs power at different degree of compensation




2.7 FACTS Applications


In general, FACTS devices can be utilized to increase transmission capacity,
the stability margin and served to ensure improved power quality in transmission
line. The power industry should control power flow in lines to transfer electrical
power economically with highest safety margin and within operating constraints.
The operating constraints are such as thermal limits of current carrying conductors,
voltage limits and structural limits of supporting infrastructure. Some of the
potential applications of FACTS technology are parallel power flow, stability
constraints of maximum transmission line loading, and reactive power constraints of
maximum transmission line loading [15-16]. Their applications will be discussed in
detail in next part.





31
2.7.1 Parallel Power Flow


Parallel power flow is a problem occurred in transmission lines because of
power flowing through other than the intended lines under utilization of line
capacity. Power flows in accordance to line impedances that have no relationship to
contracts or thermal limits. In Figure 2.19, the power was intended to go from bus 1
to bus 2, but if the line impedance from bus 1 to 3 is smaller than the impedance in
line 1 to 2, the power will also flow through bus 1 to bus 3. This may result in
overloading of line 1-3, which causes a decrease in the power delivered from bus 1 to
2, which in turn causes the under loading of line 1-2 [15].



Figure 2.19 Parallel power flow



High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) schemes can be used to control load
sharing between transmission lines which is costly to implement. Since FACTS
devices can be fitted retrospectively to existing transmission line which is more
economical, the use of FACTS technology become more attractive solutions.
FACTS devices become more important for the stability of the system and control of
power flow through a critical situation such as unexpected line outages since they
can effectively control transmission lines during steady state condition or transient
condition [23-25].


32
2.7.2 Increase Transmission Line Loading Constraints


The power flow over an AC line is a function of phase angle, terminal voltage
line and line impedance. The Figure 2.20 (a) and Figure 2.20 (b) illustrate their
relationship. If the phase angle is increased, there is a risk of transient and voltage
stability problem along the line. According to equation (2.28) the power transmitted,
P along the transmission line will be affected if phase angle is increased [15].



(a) (b)
Figure 2.20 (a) Power flow in transmission line (b) Phasor diagram


P =

sin (2.28)

where V
S
= sending-end voltage
V
R
= receiving-end voltage
X = reactance of line
= phase angle

FACTS devices can solve both transient and steady-state instability problems
in transmission line. They inherently increase stability margin by allowing greater
circuit loading before the stability constraint is meet. The speed control action of
FACTS devices help to the damp power oscillations. The voltage instability can be
worsening by lack of speed of the automatic distribution system transformer tap
changers. Static VAR Compensator (SVC) is commonly used to stabilize receiving
end voltage in this situation [22-25].
33
2.7.3 Reactive Power Support in Transmission System


When reactive power is needed in specific locations, it is supplied by shunt
capacitors or synchronous condensers. This leads to low reactive power flows in
transmission line. The reactive power limits may appear as inequality constraint in
the power flow equations [20]. Line will absorb reactive power according to
equation (2.29). Greater line loading leads to greater reactive power absorption. The
line loading is constraint if the reactive power is not available to offset the reactive
power absorbed by the line. The Figure 2.21 shows lumped element representation
of a transmission line [2, 16].



Figure 2.21 Lumped element representation of transmission line


The reactive power absorbed by line, Q
L
:

Q
L
=

.
2

(2.29)
where V
S
= sending-end voltage
R = resistance of line
X = reactance of line

The effect of shunt capacitance, C must be considered for long transmission
line. The bus bar voltages are in phase and the no reactive power is absorbed by load
if there is no load on the line. The line shunt capacitance will generate reactive
power, Q
C
according to the equation (2.30) [2, 15].
34
Q
C
= -V
S
2
C (2.30)

where = natural frequency

For longer transmission reactive compensation is needed to ensure the
reactive power balance is meeting and line loading is not adversely constrained. At
surge impedance loading the shunt reactive power is precisely matched the line
reactive power [3]. So, the line considered exhibits an ideal power transmission
characteristic at natural loading where the transmitted power P
0
:

P
0
=

0
2

0
(2.31)

where V
0
= rated voltage of line
Z
0
= surge impedance

Z
0
=

(2.32)

where l = length of line

The FACTS devices will provide reactive compensation which allow line to
behave as it is always naturally loaded. By using elementary techniques of AC
circuit analysis and complex phasors allows a very effective treatment and power
flow control of transmission line with FACTS devices [15, 16].
35
CHAPTER 3




METHODOLOGY




3.1 Introduction


In this chapter, the steady-state modelling of three types of FACTS devices
which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC are presented. The steady-state of UPFC is
modelled with the combination of SVC and TCSC. These models are incorporated
into the power flow study program called MATPOWER [10]. These FACTS devices
were used to improve the bus voltage profiles.


Then, the basic concept of power analysis had been explained briefly. Later,
how to create low voltage profile for test system is explained in detail. At last, how
the power flow analysis is done with and without incorporating FACTS devices into
test system discussed here.

36
3.2 Transmission Line Model


The FACTS devices are incorporated in the admittance network matrix by
modifying the original network which found in MATPOWER after the installation of
FACTS devices in the system. Hence, the description of transmission line model
will be explained first in order to show the relationship of transmission line model
with the FACTS device models.


As the length of line increases, the line charging current must take into
account and shunt capacitance must be considered. For medium length transmission
line (above 580km and below 250km), half shunt capacitance is considered to be
lumped at each end of line. This is represented by a equivalent circuit as shown in
Figure 3.1. The series impedance of line is given by equation (3.1) and Y
shunt
is total
shunt admittance of line which is given by equation (3.2) [17, 33, 34].

Z
series
= R + jX (3.1)

Y
shunt
= G + jB (3.2)

where R = resistance of line
X = reactance of line
G = conductance of line
B = susceptance of line



Figure 3.1 Lumped - equivalent circuit of medium transmission line
37
In general, the line reactance is assumed to be 10 times larger than the
resistance of line (X R), so R is considered to be negligible. The shunt
conductance, G is considered to be negligible because of the large conductor spacing
and dielectric of the air. Hence the above equation (3.1) and (3.2) can be simplified
to equation (3.3) and (3.3).

Z
series
= jX (3.3)

Y
shunt
= jB (3.4)

From the Kirchhoffs Current Law (KCL), the node-voltage equation in
matrix form is:

I
S
I
R
=

V
S
V
R
(3.5)

where

= self admittance
Y
ij
,

= mutual admittance
I
S
= sending current
I
R
= receiving current
V
S
= sending end voltage
V
R
= receiving end voltage

The line impedance is converted to admittance where:

Y
series
=
1
Z
series

(3.6)

The installation of any FACTS devices in the transmission line influences the
element of admittance matrix. The self admittance,

or

is the diagonal element

of each node and is sum of admittance connected to that node. The Y
ij
or

is
mutual admittances and off diagonal elements which is equal to the negative of the
admittance connected between nodes i and j. Therefore, the line admittance between
sending end and receiving end can be rewritten as [17, 33]:
38
Y
bus
=

+
Y
shunt
2
Y
series
Y
series

+
Y
shunt
2
(3.7)




3.3 Modeling of SVC


The SVC is a shunt connected variable reactance which either generates or
absorbs reactive power in order to regulate the voltage magnitude at the point of
connection. It is used to provide fast reactive power and voltage regulation where it
is usually connected to the bus where heavy load is present


SVC can be modeled as a variable reactance with firing angle limit or
susceptance limit. In this project, only reactive power limit is taken into account
when modeling SVC for the steady state applications. The SVC acts like a
controllable parallel susceptance (capacitive or inductive) and can be represented as
variable susceptance connected in parallel to the network [1, 17].


The equivalent circuit shown in Figure 3.2 (a) and (b) is used to derive the
SVC power flow equations. All the explanation on SVC modeling is based on this
SVC model in Figure 3.2 (a) and (b) [1-19].


With reference to Figure 3.2 (a), the current drawn by the SVC is:

I
SVC
= jB
SVC
V
k
(3.8)

where V
k
= terminal voltage at bus k
B
SVC
= susceptance of SVC
39


(a) (b)
Figure 3.2 (a) The SVC model (b) Inductive and capacitive characteristic of
SVC model


The reactive power drawn by SVC, which also the reactive power injected at bus k
Q
K
is:

Q
k
= -

2
B
SVC
(3.9)


The reactive power for this model is varied between -100 MVAR and 100
MVAR until get the optimum value of reactive power. This model is incorporated
into IEEE 9-bus test system to verify its functionality where at the bus where the
device is installed the reactive power will be changed in capacitive and inductive
region. Then, the optimal reactive power value of SVC is obtained by changing its
reactive power within the range until the bus voltage has improved at maximum
value.







40
3.4 Modeling of TCSC


There are two types of power flow models of TCSC are used to influence the
power network for dynamic and steady state applications which are controllable
series reactance and reactance firing angle model. For this project, the simpler
variable series reactance model is used to decrease or increase the line impedance by
modifying the reactance of transmission line. The TCSC can operate in either
capacitive or inductive region to automatically limit the power flow across the
branch to a specified value. In this project, the compensation level of TCSC is varied
in the range of 20% inductive and 70% capacitive to avoid overcompensation. The
reactance of transmission line with TCSC installed can be change directly by
modifying the branch data of the test power system [1-19]. The Figure 3.3 (a) and
(b) below shows the model of TCSC and their inductive and capacitive characteristic
of TCSC.



(a) (b)
Figure 3.3 (a) The TCSC model (b) Inductive and capacitive characteristic of
TCSC


All the explanation on TCSC modeling used for power flow analysis is based
on the model of TCSC shown in Figure 3.3 (a) and (b) and used them to derive
power flow equations for TCSC. With referring to this figure, the effective
impedance of transmission line with TCSC can be expressed as in equation (3.10):


41
X
ij
= X
line
+ X
TCSC
(3.10)

X
TCSC
= k*X
line
(3.11)

where X
ij
= effective reactance of line
X
line
= original reactance of line
X
TCSC
= reactance of TCSC
k = degree of compensation

The value of k varies in the range of -0.2 k 0.7.


The original reactance of line for this model is varied between -70% and 20%
of the reactance of line until the optimum reactance value is obtained. This model is
incorporated into IEEE 9-bus test system to verify its functionality where at the
branch where the device is installed the reactive power flows and line losses will be
changed. Then, the optimal reactance value of TCSC is obtained by changing the
degree of compensation within the range until the bus voltage has improved at
maximum value and line losses is reduced significantly.




3.5 Modeling of UPFC


The UPFC is a combined series-shunt controller which is able to control
simultaneously all the parameters affecting power flow in transmission line namely
voltage, impedance and phase angle. The device can provide unique functional
capability to independently control both real and reactive power flow in the network
as well the bus voltage magnitude. This most versatile and effective device enables a
very flexible steady state modeling of UPFC for power flow study. In order to study
the impact of UPFC on power systems, it is important to develop UPFC steady state
model.
42
Usually, the UPFC is represented by two models which are Voltage Source
Model (VSM) and Power Injection Model (PIM). In general, the UPFC is consist of
voltage source converters, one connected in shunt and other in series and both
connected through a DC capacitor [1-20]. Usually, UPFC is developed by
combination of a Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM) and a Static Series
Compensator (SSSC). In this project, the steady state model of UPFC is developed
by the combination of SVC and TCSC models. Therefore, UPFC operational limits
also depend on the selected SVC and TCSC models. The Figure 3.4 below shows
the UPFC model and all the explanations on UPFC modeling used for power flow
analysis is based on this model.



Figure 3.4 The UPFC model


UPFC actually consists of the SVC model which is shunt connected to bus i
or from bus then grounded and TCSC model which is connected in series with the
branch between bus i and bus j. The UPFC model is controlled based on the selected
devices where for the shunt compensation the reactive power is controlled between -
100 MVAR and 100 MVAR, and for the series compensation the reactance of line is
controlled between -70% and 20% of reactance of line. After incorporating UPFC
into IEEE 9-bus test system, the optimal rated value for UPFC is obtained by
controlling both parameters until bus voltage has improved at maximum value and
line losses is reduced significantly.
43
3.6 Test System for Power Flow Analysis


In order to incorporate the FACTS models presented in previous section into
power flow analysis, a test power system network need to be used for testing
purpose. For this project, a simple and small power system which is IEEE 9- bus test
system was used. The diagram of the test system which is used for the power flow
study is shown in Figure 3.5. This system consists of 3 generators, 3 load busses and
9 buses that are connected through 9 transmission lines or branches. Bus 1 is the
slack bus, Bus 2 and 3 are the voltage controlled buses or PV buses, while Bus 5, 7
and 9 are load buses or PQ buses. All the system data are in per unit system where
base MVA value is assumed to be 100 MVA. Voltage limits, line thermal limits,
generator power limits with other inequality constraints are considered in this test
system. The voltage magnitude limit of each bus is assumed to be within 0.9 pu and
1.1 pu [10].



Figure 3.5 IEEE 9-bus test system


Actually, a more complex and larger power system network with more buses
such as IEEE 118-bus test system can be used to test and analyze the FACTS device
44
models. By using larger power system network, more accurate and good output
result of power flow analysis can be obtained. But, due to limited time and
complexity, only simple test power system is used in this project.


First, the optimal power flow analysis is done without incorporating FACTS
device steady-state model into power system network. The Optimal Power Flow is a
static nonlinear programming in MATPOWER aimed at scheduling the controls of
the power system which can optimizes a certain functions while satisfying a set of
operational and physical constraints. Then, the optimal power flow study is done by
incorporating FACTS device steady-state models into power system network.
Several aspects of power system performance had been observed in both power flow
analysis. These include the voltage magnitude at each bus, active power and reactive
power flow, total active and reactive power losses in the system and other related
power system performance parameters. In next section, the basic concept of power
flow analysis is explained briefly.




3.7 Basic Concept of Power Flow Analysis


Power flow or also known as load flow is the backbone of power system
analysis and design. Power flow analysis is done during steady-state analysis of an
interconnected power system during normal operation. The system is assumed to be
operating under balanced condition and the system is represented by a single phase
network [16, 34].


In power system analysis, power flow of real and reactive power is
considered in the networks. Thus, the resulting mathematical equations are in terms
of power and the power flow equations and need to be solved by iterative techniques.
Power flow analysis becomes essential methods required in the analysis of power
45
system network and widely used in planning, design and operation of power system.
The objectives of power flow analysis are to find the magnitudes and phase angle of
voltages at each bus and active and reactive power flow in each line at the steady-
state operating conditions [16, 34].


There are various power flow methods in order to perform the power flow
calculations such as Gauss-Seidel method, Newton-Rahpson method and Fast
Decoupled method. All of these methods use the non-linear algebraic equations to
solve power flow analysis. For this project, Newton-Raphson method was selected
to be used in power flow analysis because of its advantages compared to other
methods proposed.




3.7.1 Power Flow Chart


The Figure 3.6 on next page shows the flow chart for basic Newton-Raphson
power flow analysis. It only shows the basic flow to get the value of parameters in
power flow analysis. The main aim for this power flow analysis is to find power
flow solution of the network by finding real power P, reactive power Q, bus voltages
V and voltage angles . The iteration process is going on until it satisfied the
specified condition and update the values of terminal voltage and angles at each
iterations.








46

















NO

YES




Figure 3.6 Flow chart for Newton-Raphson power flow analysis


START
Read system data
Form system
admittance matrix

Initialize all voltage
and angles
Output
P, Q, V, and losses
Update voltage and angle to
satisfy specified condition
Satisfied?
47
3.7.2 Procedure for Newton-Rahpson Power Solution


For this project, Newton-Raphson method is chosen to do power flow
analysis, so some of the basic concept or procedure for this method is explained in
here. First, for the load buses, where the real power, P
i
sch
and reactive power, Q
i
sch

are specified, voltage magnitudes, and phase angles are set equal to the slack bus
values, |V
i
(0)
| =1.0 and
i
(0)
= 0.0. For the voltage controlled buses or PV buses,
where the voltage magnitude, |V
i
| and P
i
sch
are specified, phase angles are set equal to
the slack bus angle, where
i
(0)
= 0.0 [32-34].


Next, for load buses, P
i
(k)
and Q
i
(k)
are calculated from equations (3.12) and
(3.13) and P
i
(k)
and Q
i
(k)
are calculated from equations (3.14) and (3.15). For the
PV buses, P
i
(k)
and P
i
(k)
are also calculated from equations (3.12) and (3.14) [32-
34].


P
i
= V
i
|V
j
n
=1
||Y
ij
|cos(
ij

i
+
j
) (3.12)

Q
i
= - V
i
|V
j
n
=1
||Y
ij
|sin(
ij

i
+
j
) (3.13)

P
i
(k)
= P
i
sch
- P
i
(k)
(3.14)

Q
i
(k)
= Q
i
sch
- Q
i
(k)
(3.15)

where P
i
(k)
= real power at k
th
iteration
Q
i
(k)
= reactive power at k
th
iteration

i
and
j
= phase angle of voltages
Y
ij
= bus admittance at i and j

= angle of bus admittance at i and j

P
i
(k)
and Q
i
(k)
= power residual at k
th
iteration
48
The elements of the Jacobian matrix (J1, J2, J3, J4) are then calculated.
Elements of Jacobian matrix are the partial derivatives of equation (3.12) and (3.13)
evaluated at
i
(k)
and |V
i
(k)
|. It can be written as:



P
Q
=
J1 J2
J3 J4

|V|
(3.16)


The linear simultaneous equation (3.16) is solved directly by optimally
ordered triangular factorization and Gauss elimination. The new voltage magnitude
and phase angles are computed from equation (3.17) and (3.18). The process is
continued until the residuals P
i
(k)
and Q
i
(k)
are less than the specified accuracy [32-
34].

i
(k+1)
=
i
(k)
+
i
(k)
(3.17)

|V
i
(k+1)
| = |V
i
(k)
| + |V
i
(k)
| (3.18)




3.8 Configuration of Test System for Power Flow Analysis


Some of data for the power system network will be needed in order to do
power flow analysis. The configuration and setting of parameters for bus data and
branch data are given in Table 3.1 (a) and (b) respectively [10]. Base value of the
test power system is assumed to be 100MVA.




49
Table 3.1: Configuration for original 9-bus test system (a) Bus data (b) Branch data

Bus
No
Bus type
Voltage
mag, Vm
(pu)
Voltage
angle,
Va
(degree)
Load Generator
Pd (MW)
Qd
(MVar)
Pg (MW)
Qg
(MVar)
1 Slack 1.00 0 0 0 0 0
2 PV 1.00 0 0 0 163 0
3 PV 1.00 0 0 0 85 0
4 - 1.00 0 0 0 - -
5 PQ 1.00 0 90 30 - -
6 - 1.00 0 0 0 - -
7 PQ 1.00 0 100 35 - -
8 - 1.00 0 0 0 - -
9 PQ 1.00 0 125 50 - -
(a)


From
bus no,
fbus
To bus
no, tbus
Resistance r
(pu)
Reactance x
(pu)
Susceptance
b (pu)
1 4 0 0.0576 0
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358
3 6 0 0.0586 0
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149
8 2 0 0.0625 0
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306
9 4 0.01 0.0850 0.176
(b)



50
3.9 Creating the Low Voltage Profile for Test System


The worst condition for IEEE 9-bus bus test system is created by modifying
the original case9 in MATPOWER. The bus data of case9 is modified by
changing reactive loads demand, increasing reactive power load at bus 9 from 50
MVAR to 220 MVAR. By this change, the overall bus voltage profiles of the test
system become worsen. Especially, the bus voltage magnitude at bus 9 affected a
lot, its value decreased very drastically. The Figure 3.7 shows the reactive power
increase at bus 9, initially at 50 MVAR increase to 220 MVAR.




Figure 3.7 Reactive power increase at bus 9


The voltage drop due to increase in reactive power load is explained by
relation between voltage and reactive power. The Figure 3.8 (a) and (b) below show
the power flow across line and the phasor representation.


51

(a) (b)
Figure 3.8 (a) Power flow across line (b) Phasor representation


V
2
= V
1
IZ (3.19)

I =

1
(3.20)

V
2
= V
1
[

1
]Z (3.21)
Neglecting the line resistance, R = 0. The equation (3.21) becomes:

V
2
= V
1
-

(3.22)

Based on phasor diagram in Figure 3.11(b), the voltage level is influenced largely by
the reactive power drop

since

component does not affect the voltage

profile much. Assuming voltage drop due to P = 0, the equation (3.22) becomes:

V
2
= V
1
-

(3.23)

V
2
- V
1
= -

(3.24)

From equation, we can infer that the reactive power increases, the voltage drop will
increase.


52
3.10 Simulation With and Without FACTS Devices


First, the simulation or optimal power flow analysis is done without
incorporating FACTS devices into the worst test system. Several parameters of the
power system are observed such as the voltage magnitude at each bus, the active and
reactive power flow, and total real and reactive power losses in the system. From the
simulation result, a very low bus voltage profile will be obtained.


Then, the test system is simulated again by incorporating FACTS devices
which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC into the system. The only difference between this
simulation and previous simulation is by installing FACTS devices into the test
system. The best or optimal location to install the FACTS devices have to be
determined before installing them. This is done by try installing the FACTS devices
at each buses and branches until better voltage profile and improved power flow of
the lines are obtained. Usually, the optimal location to incorporate FACTS devices is
at the weakest bus which has the lowest bus voltage magnitude. After the optimal
power flow analysis is done, their results are then compared. The power flow
analysis result will be discussed in Chapter 4.

53
CHAPTER 4




RESULT AND DISCUSSION




4.1 Introduction


Based on methodology explained in previous chapter, the result of optimal
power flow analysis with and without using FACTS devices and the reasons to get
such a result will be discussed. The comparison of power flow result of each FACTS
devices and choosing the best choice of FACTS device to be used also will be
presented in this chapter.




4.2 Power Flow Analysis on Original Test System


The optimal power flow analysis is done on the original IEEE 9-bus test
system at normal operating conditions without incorporating any FACTS devices
into the system. The Table 4.1 (a) and (b) show the simulation result of the IEEE 9-
bus test system.
54
Table 4.1: Power flow result for original IEEE 9-bus test system (a) Bus data (b)
Branch data
Bus
No
Voltage Generation Load
Mag
(pu)
Ang
(deg)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 1.100 0.000 89.80 12.94 - -
2 1.097 4.893 134.32 0.05 - -
3 1.087 3.249 94.19 -22.62 - -
4 1.094 -2.463 - - - -
5 1.084 -3.982 - - 90.00 30.00
6 1.100 0.602 - - - -
7 1.089 -1.197 - - 100.00 35.00
8 1.100 0.905 - - - -
9 1.072 -4.616 - - 125.00 50.00
Total 318.31 -9.63 315.00 115.00
(a)


From
Bus
To
Bus
From Bus Injection To Bus Injection Line Loss
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 4 89.80 12.94 -89.80 -9.02 0.000 3.92
4 5 35.22 -3.90 -35.04 -13.87 0.181 0.98
5 6 -54.96 -16.13 55.97 -22.18 1.010 4.40
3 6 94.19 -22.62 -94.19 27.28 0.000 4.66
6 7 38.22 -5.10 -38.07 -18.68 0.149 1.26
7 8 -61.93 -16.32 62.21 0.82 0.279 2.36
8 2 -134.32 9.32 134.32 0.05 0.000 9.36
8 9 72.11 -10.14 -70.72 -18.94 1.394 7.01
9 4 -54.28 -31.06 54.58 12.92 0.295 2.51
Total 3.307 36.46
(b)

55
The Newton-Rahpson method in MATPOWER was used to solve the power
flow analysis. All the bus voltages that obtained from the power flow analysis are
within 0.9 pu and 1.1pu and does not violate bus limit that was set. The total power
generation of each generator is the summation of power entering and leaving the bus
where the generator is connected. On the other hand, the load at each bus is obtained
by summation of all power flow which entering and leaving that corresponding bus.




4.3 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System


The original IEEE 9-bus test system is then modified by changing the
reactive load demand at bus number 9. The reactive power at bus number 9 is
increased gradually from 50 MVAR to 220 MVAR until it reach critical value
without violating the minimum voltage limit which is at 0.9 pu. Then, the optimal
power flow analysis is done on the modified test system without incorporating any
FACTS devices. The Table 4.2 (a) and (b) show the simulation result of the
modified IEEE 9-bus test system.


From the optimal power flow analysis, it can be observed that the overall bus
voltage profile become worse after the test system is modified, especially the voltage
magnitude of bus 9 is reduced significantly from 1.072 pu to 0.903 pu. The total line
losses also are increased for the modified test system. When the reactive is
increased, the voltage drop also will be increased and this concept was well
explained previously in Chapter 3. The voltage drop in system also influence the
power flows in lines which leads to increase in line losses.




56
Table 4.2: Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system (a) Bus data
(b) Branch data
Bus
No
Voltage Generation Load
Mag
(pu)
Ang
(deg)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 1.100 0.000 91.71 133.88 - -
2 1.100 4.806 135.97 75.39 - -
3 1.087 2.868 95.56 12.29 - -
4 1.031 -2.670 - - - -
5 1.035 -4.457 - - 90.00 30.00
6 1.082 0.140 - - - -
7 1.058 -0.1669 - - 100.00 35.00
8 1.060 0.627 - - - -
9 0.903 -4.756 - - 125.00 220.00
Total 323.24 221.56 315.00 285.00
(a)


From
Bus
To
Bus
From Bus Injection To Bus Injection Line Loss
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 4 91.71 133.38 -91.71 -91.71 0.000 12.54
4 5 34.29 -18.58 -34.08 -34.08 0.205 1.11
5 6 -55.92 -32.83 57.12 57.12 1.206 5.26
3 6 95.56 12.29 -95.66 -95.56 0.000 4.60
6 7 38.44 9.73 -38.24 -38.24 0.199 1.69
7 8 -61.76 -3.03 62.06 62.06 0.292 2.47
8 2 -135.97 -62.91 135.97 135.97 0.000 12.49
8 9 73.91 74.11 -69.98 -69.98 3.930 19.77
9 4 -55.02 -136.00 57.43 57.43 2.407 20.46
Total 8.239 80.38
(b)

57
4.4 Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System after Incorporating SVC


The SVC model is shunt connected to the bus number 9 in modified IEEE 9-
bus test system because it was found that it is the best location to install SVC since it
has the lowest bus voltage magnitude among all the other buses. Then, the optimal
power flow analysis is done on the test system at normal operating conditions with
incorporating SVC device into the system. The reactive power for the SVC at bus
number 9 is varied between -100 MVAR and 100 MVAR until an optimal value is
achieved. The optimum value of reactive power for SVC was found to be -100
MVAR, where the overall voltage profile had improved a lot and there is a high
increase of voltage magnitude at bus 9.bus. The Table 4.3 (a) and (b) show the
simulation result after installing SVC device into the modified test system.


Table 4.3: Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating SVC at bus 9 (a) Bus data (b) Branch data
Bus
No
Voltage Generation Load
Mag
(pu)
Ang
(deg)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 1.100 0.000 90.14 53.94 - -
2 1.100 4.796 134.60 25.32 - -
3 1.096 2.990 94.47 -6.11 - -
4 1.073 -2.522 - - - -
5 1.070 -4.146 - - 90.00 30.00
6 1.100 0.357 - - - -
7 1.082 -1.405 - - 100.00 35.00
8 1.088 0.767 - - - -
9 1.012 -4.628 - - 125.00 120
Total 319.21 73.15 315.00 185.00
(a)


58
From
Bus
To
Bus
From Bus Injection To Bus Injection Line Loss
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 4 90.14 53.94 -90.14 -48.69 0.000 5.25
4 5 34.88 -11.73 -34.70 -5.43 0.181 0.98
5 6 -55.30 -24.57 56.35 -13.01 1.047 4.57
3 6 94.47 -6.11 -94.47 10.48 0.000 4.38
6 7 38.13 2.53 -37.96 -26.02 0.166 1.40
7 8 -62.04 -8.98 62.32 -6.20 0.279 2.37
8 2 -134.60 -15.63 134.60 25.32 0.000 9.69
8 9 72.28 21.83 -70.44 -46.36 1.843 9.27
9 4 -54.56 -73.64 55.26 60.42 0.698 5.93
Total 4.214 43.83
(b)




4.5 Optimal Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System after
Incorporating TCSC


The TCSC model is connected in series to the branch number 9, which is
between bus 4 and bus 9 in modified test system because it was found that branch is
the best location to install TCSC since it has the largest line losses among all the
other branches. Then, the optimal power flow analysis is done on the modified test
system at normal operating conditions with incorporating TCSC device into the
system. The reactance of the transmission line is varied in the range of -70% to 20%
of the original reactance of line until an optimal value is achieved. The optimum
value of reactance is -0.7 of the original reactance of line, where the branch 9 has the
lowest line losses and the overall voltage profile had improved. The Table 4.4 (a)
and (b) show the power flow result of the modified test system after incorporating
TCSC device.
59
Table 4.4: Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating TCSC between bus 4 and 9 (a) Bus data (b) Branch data
Bus
No
Voltage Generation Load
Mag
(pu)
Ang
(deg)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 1.100 0.000 91.26 145.59 - -
2 1.100 6.220 135.59 45.83 - -
3 1.082 3.836 95.12 3.53 - -
4 1.025 -2.672 - - - -
5 1.030 -4.127 - - 90.00 30.00
6 1.081 1.105 - - - -
7 1.068 -0.360 - - 100.00 35.00
8 1.077 2.117 - - - -
9 0.979 -2.694 - - 125.00 220.00
Total 321.97 194.95 315.00 285.00
(a)


From
Bus
To
Bus
From Bus Injection To Bus Injection Line Loss
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 4 91.26 145.59 -91.26 -131.54 0.000 14.06
4 5 27.19 -18.81 -27.06 2.88 0.138 0.74
5 6 -62.94 -32.88 64.47 -0.39 1.527 6.66
3 6 95.12 3.53 -95.12 1.01 0.000 4.53
6 7 30.65 -0.61 -30.54 -22.59 0.109 0.93
7 8 -69.46 -12.41 69.82 -1.66 0.361 3.06
8 2 -135.59 -35.25 135.59 45.83 0.000 10.58
8 9 65.77 36.91 -63.75 -59.15 2.018 10.15
9 4 -61.25 -160.85 64.07 150.35 2.816 7.18
Total 6.969 57.89
(b)

60
4.6 Optimal Power Flow Analysis on Modified Test System after
Incorporating UPFC


The UPFC model is connected to the branch number 9, which is between bus
4 and bus 9 into the modified test system because that branch has the largest line
losses and lowest bus voltage at bus 9 if compared with other buses and branches.
The shunt part of the UPFC is connected at bus number 9 which is a from bus in
branch data. Then, the optimal power flow analysis is done on the modified IEEE 9-
bus test system at normal operating conditions with incorporating UPFC device into
the system. The Table 4.5 (a) and (b) show the simulation result after installing
UPFC device into the modified test system


Table 4.5: Power flow result for modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating UPFC between bus 4 and 9 (a) Bus data (b) Branch data
Bus
No
Voltage Generation Load
Mag
(pu)
Ang
(deg)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 1.100 0.000 90.10 62.01 - -
2 1.100 6.008 134.60 12.93 - -
3 1.094 3.757 94.36 -8.90 - -
4 1.069 -2.530 - - - -
5 1.067 -3.889 - - 90.00 30.00
6 1.100 1.123 - - - -
7 1.087 -0.349 - - 100.00 35.00
8 1.095 2.004 - - - -
9 1.044 -2.931 - - 125.00 120
Total 319.05 66.04 315.00 185
(a)



61
From
Bus
To
Bus
From Bus Injection To Bus Injection Line Loss
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
P
(MW)
Q
(MVAR)
1 4 90.10 62.01 -90.10 -56.32 0.000 5.69
4 5 28.86 -11.88 -28.73 -5.46 0.125 0.68
5 6 -61.27 -24.54 62.56 -11.85 1.293 5.63
3 6 94.36 -8.90 -94.36 13.30 0.000 4.40
6 7 31.80 -1.45 -31.68 -22.59 0.112 0.95
7 8 -68.32 -12.41 68.65 -2.47 0.337 2.85
8 2 -134.60 -3.49 134.60 12.93 0.000 9.44
8 9 65.94 5.96 -64.63 -34.37 1.318 6.63
9 4 -60.37 -85.63 61.24 68.20 0.865 2.20
Total 4.048 38.48
(b)


Since UPFC is developed by combination of SVC and TCSC models, its
operational limits also depend on the selected SVC and TCSC models. The reactive
power for the UPFC is varied between -100 MVAR and 100 MVAR until a suitable
value is achieved. At the same time, the reactance of the transmission line is varied
in the range of -70% to 20% of the original reactance of line until a suitable value is
achieved. The optimal combination of reactive power and reactance value were
found to be -100 MVAR and -0.7 of the original reactance of line. It was found that
the line losses reduced significantly and the voltage profile had improved a lot after
installing UPFC device into test system.








62
4.7 Comparison of Power Flow Analysis with and without FACTS Devices


The comparison of power flow analysis on the modified test system is done
with and without using FACTS devices which are SVC, TCSC and UPFC. The
comparison is done in terms of voltage profile, total real power and reactive power
line losses and total power generation. In all cases, it is observed that FACTS
devices such as SVC, TCSC and UPFC had improved the bus voltage profile and at
the same time improves the power flow of the lines.


The Figure 4.1 shows bus voltage profile with and without incorporating
FACTS devices such as SVC, TCSC and UPFC into the modified test system. The
voltage limit of each bus is set within 0.9 pu and 1.1 pu. From Figure 4.1, it is
observed that all the bus voltage magnitude for the system without FACTS devices
are lower than with the FACTS devices. So, the installation of FACTS devices into
low voltage profile system has improved the overall voltage profile of the system.
There is a significant or tremendous increase in voltage magnitude for bus 9 which
has the lowest voltage magnitude compared to other bus since the FACTS devices
were connected to that bus.


The voltage magnitude at bus 1 and bus 2 is not affected because their
voltages are already in their peak value which is at 1.1 pu, so their voltages cannot be
increase beyond this limit which violates the voltage limits. It is observed that both
UPFC and SVC is the best choice of FACTS type for the voltage profile
improvement because there is high increase in bus voltage magnitudes by using them
compared with TCSC. The SVC provides reactive shunt compensation by regulating
the terminal voltages and supplying reactive power which effectively increase the
bus voltage magnitudes. On the other hand, TCSC provides series capacitive
compensation which effectively increase the voltage stability limits. The UPFC is
the most versatile FACTS device which can control both real and reactive power
flows in lines and effectively increase the bus voltage profile.
63

Figure 4.1 Bus voltage profile with and without FACTS device
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
u
)
Bus Number
Without FACTS
SVC
TCSC
UPFC
64
The Figure 4.2 (a) and (b) on next page show the real and reactive power line
losses for each branches. From the Figure 4.2, it can observe that the reactive power
line losses are higher than real power line losses. Overall, both the real and reactive
power line losses without FACTS devices are higher than with FACTS devices. The
installation of FACTS devices successfully improved the power flow in lines and
reduces power losses in lines. Among all the FACTS devices used in this project,
UPFC improves the power flows in lines better than SVC and TCSC. The SVC also
reduced line losses better than UPFC at some branches. Since the UPFC can control
both real and reactive power flows in lines, it can reduce the power losses in lines
effectively.


From Figure 4.2 (b), it can be seen that there is high reactive power losses in
branch number 9 since reactive power demand in bus 9 was increased to create worst
system. But with the installation of UPFC at branch 9, the reactive power line losses
reduced dramatically. This follows by the SVC and TCSC. The SVC reduces the line
losses by supplying reactive power demand. The TCSC provides series capacitive
compensation in order to reduce the line losses.
















65

(a)


66

(b)
Figure 4.2 Line losses with and without FACTS devices (a) Real power line loss (b) Reactive power line loss
67
The Figure 4.3 below shows the total real power and reactive power line
losses without using FACTS devices and with using FACTS devices such as SVC,
TCSC and UPFC into the modified test system. It is clearly observed that, there is
high total real power and reactive power line losses for the system which not using
any FACTS devices. The total real power line losses are not much affected
compared to total reactive power losses after installing FACTS devices into the
system. The total line losses are reduced significantly after installing FACTS
devices into the modified test system because FACTS devices can effectively used to
increase the transfer capabilities of the available lines.


It is observed that, UPFC gives better improvement to power flow of the lines
since it has lowest total line losses for both real power and reactive power loss
compared to SVC and TCSC. Since UPFC can control both real and reactive power
of the transmission line, it easily can improve the power flow of the lines and reduce
the line losses. Both SVC and TCSC also improved the power flow of the lines, but
SVC improves power flow in lines better compared to TCSC.



Figure 4.3 Total real and reactive power line loss with and without FACTS
devices

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Real Power Reactive Power
T
o
t
a
l

L
i
n
e

L
o
s
s

(
M
W
/
M
V
A
R
)
Without FACTS
SVC
TCSC
UPFC
68
The Figure 4.4 below shows the total real and reactive power generation
without and with FACTS devices such as SVC, TCSC and UPFC in modified test
system. It is clearly seen from the Figure 4.4 that the total real and reactive power
generation for the test system without using FACTS devices is higher than with using
FACTS devices. The total real power generation is not much affected compared to
total reactive power generation after installing FACTS devices since there is more
important to reduce reactive power generation to get high quality power supply with
lower production cost.


The total real and reactive power generation for UPFC is the lowest among
all the FACTS devices that used because it effectively reduce reactive power flow in
line by controlling real and reactive power flows in lines, thus allowing more active
power flow in the lines. Both SVC and TCSC also reduced the total power
generation but SVC reduced power generation better than TCSC because SVC easily
supplies the required reactive power.



Figure 4.4 Total real and reactive power generation with and without FACTS
devices
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Real Power Reactive Power
P
o
w
e
r

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
/
M
V
A
R
)
Without FACTS
SVC
TCSC
UPFC
69
CHAPTER 5




CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS




5.1 Introduction


In this chapter, the conclusions and recommendation for this project are
presented. The main aim of this project is to design a steady state model of UPFC by
the combination of SVC and TCSC steady state model and incorporate it into IEEE
9-bus test system in order to perform optimal power flow analysis using
MATPOWER. The main properties and functions of SVC, TCSC and UPFC, the
shunt compensation and series compensation descriptions were well explained in this
thesis. The active and reactive power flow together voltage magnitude can be
controlled effectively using these FACTS devices to improve voltage profile and at
the same time reduce transmission line losses.

70
5.2 Conclusions


In conclusion, all the objectives of this project have been achieved
successfully. The steady-state model of UPFC is successfully designed by the
combination of SVC and TCSC steady state models. The SVC is shunt connected
device which is used to control the reactive power compensation. The TCSC is a
series connected device and it is used to control the reactance of transmission line.
The UPFC can control the line impedance, terminal voltage and voltage angle
simultaneously thereby regulating real and reactive power flows in the power system.


The optimal allocation of SVC, TCSC and UPFC in test system was
determined by incorporating these FACTS devices at different busses and branches
in order to determine the best location. It was found that the optimal location to
incorporate the FACTS devices is where it has the weakest bus which also has the
lowest bus voltage. The low voltage profile is created by increasing reactive load
demand at bus number 9 which leads to voltage collapse in the network.


The reactive power of SVC is varied between -100 MVAR and 100 MVAR
in order to determine the optimal value of reactive power which is -100 MVAR. The
reactance of TCSC is varied between -0.7 and 0.2 of the reactance of line in order to
determine its optimal value which is found to be -0.7 of the line reactance. The rated
value of UPFC is based on the combination of SVC and TCSC operational limits.
The Table 4.1 summarizes the rated value of each FACTS devices used in this
project and their optimal location to install them into IEEE 9-bus test system.


The optimal power flow analysis is done on the modified test system without
using FACTS devices and with using FACTS devices to compare the effectiveness
of each FACTS device. It is found that all the FACTS devices improve power flow
of the lines and at the same time improve the bus voltage profile. But UPFC is the
best choice among all other FACTS devices since it outperformed all the power
71
system performance parameters such as has the lowest line losses and better voltage
profile.


Table 4.1: The rated value and optimal location of each FACTS device
FACTS Type Rated Value Location
SVC -100 MVAR Bus 9
TCSC -0.7X
line
Line 4-9
UPFC
-100 MVAR
-0.7X
line

Line 4-9




5.2 Recommendations


In this project, only single-type FACTS devices were used at one time to
study the optimal power flow of the power system. For the upcoming researches,
multi-type FACTS devices consisting of SVC, TCSC, UPFC, TCPST and other types
of FACTS devices can be used simultaneously to study the optimal power flow on a
power system.


In this project, only one simple IEEE 9-bus test system is used to study power
flow since the time is limited. In future research, a larger scale of test system such as
IEEE 118-bus test system can be used. By this, can improve the effectiveness of
FACTS devices in power system network and can get more accurate results and more
practical solutions for the power problems because the larger system can resembles
the actual real life power system network.


In this project, only try and error method was used to determine the optimal
location to install FACTS devices into test system. For future research, Bees
72
Algorithm or Genetic Algorithm can be used to find the optimal allocation of FACTS
devices in larger power system network. Bees Algorithm is an optimization method
developed by D.T Pham which is based on swarm optimization algorithms used to
optimize various parameters involved by the introduction of FACTS devices in
power network. On the other hand, Genetic algorithm is based on the mechanism of
natural selection to reach an approximate global maximum of a complex
multivariable function over a wide search area [17-19].


The power flow analysis and modeling of FACTS devices can be done using
other software than MATPOWER such as Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT),
Simulink, and Power System Computer Aided Design (PSCAD) to validate the result
that obtained in this project [35-39].





























73
REFERENCES


1. E. Acha, C. R. F. Esquivel, H. A. Perez, C. A. Camacho. FACTS: Modelling
and Simulation in Power Networks. England.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2004.

2. N. G. Hingoranl, L. Gyugyi. Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems. NJ.: John Wiley & Sons,
INC. 1999.

3. X. P. Zhang, C. Rehtanz, B. Pal. Flexible AC Transmission Systems:
Modelling and Controls. Germany.: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
2006.

4. Y. H. Song, A. T. Johns. Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS). United
Kingdom.: IEEE. 1999.

5. R. M. Mathur, R. K. Varma. Thyristor-based FACTS Controllers for
Electrical Transmission Systems. United States of America.: John Wiley &
Sons, INC. 2002 .

6. R. Kalaivani, V. Kamaraj. Modeling of Shunt FACTS Devices for Voltage
Stability Enhancement. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2011.
61(1): 144-154.

7. M. Karami, N. Mariun, M. Z. A. A. Kadir. On Basic Definition of Optimal
Allocation of FACTS devices in Power System. Proceedings of 2009 IEEE
Student Conference on Research and Development. 16-18 November 2009.
Malaysia.: IEEE. 2009. 418-421.

8. K. K. Sen, Kalyan. Introduction to FACTS controllers : theory, modeling,
and applications. NJ.: John Wiley & Sons. 2009

74
9. A. R. Bhowmik. Implementation of Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
for Power Quality Improvement in IEEE 14-Bus System. International
Journal of Computer Technology and Applications. 2011. 2(6):1889-1896.

10. R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. M. Sanchez. MATPOWER 4.0 Users Manual.
Power Systems Engineering Research Center. 2011.

11. S. E. Mubeen, R. K. Nema, G. Agnihotri. Power Flow Control with UPFC in
Power Transmission System. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology. 2008. 4(3): 338-342.

12. Ch. Chengaiah, G. V. Marutheswar, R. V. S. Satyanarayana. Control Setting
of Unified Power Flow Controller through Load Flow Calculation. ARPN
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2008. 3(6):6-10.

13. S. T. Kalyani, G. T. Das. Simulation of Real and Reactive Power Flow
Control with UPFC Connected to a Transmission Line. Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2008.16-21.

14. C. Subramani, S. S. Dash, S. Pati, M. Arunbaskar. Voltage Collapse
Prediction Location for Stability Enhancement in Power Systems based on
Single Contingency Scenario. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2011.
50(4): 554-563.

15. M. H. H. Jopri. The Implementation of UPFC in Steady State Analysis.
Bachelors Degree Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2001.

16. N. Z. Muhamad. Power Flow Analysis with Thyristor Controlled Series
Compensator (TCSC). Bachelors Degree Thesis. Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia; 2007.

17. R. M. Idris, A. Khairuddin, M. W. Mustafa, A. Kalam. Optimal Allocation of
multi-type FACTS Devices using Bees Algorithm for ATC Enhancement in
Deregulated Power System. International Review of Electrical Engineering
(I.R.E.E). 2007. 20(10):1-9.
75

18. R. M. Idris, A. Khairuddin, M. W. Mustafa. Optimal Allocation of FACTS
Devices in Deregulated Electricity Market Using Bees Algorithm. WSEAS
Transactions on Power Systems. 2010. 5(2): 108-119.

19. R. M. Idris. Allocation of Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System
Devices to Enhance Transfer Capability in Power System using Bees
Algorithm. Ph.D Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2011.

20. A. J. F. Keri, X. Lombard, A. A. Edris, A. S. Mehraban, A. Eiriachy. Unified
Power Flow Controller (UPFC): Modeling and Analysis. IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery. 1999. 14(2): 648-654.

21. P. Musthafa, G. Murugesan. Transmission Line Stability Improvement Using
TCSC. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and
Technologies. 2011. 3(2): 165-173.

22. L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder, K. K. Sen. Static synchronous series
compensator: A solid-state approach to the series compensation of
transmission lines. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 1997. 12(1): 406-
417.

23. L. Gyugyi, C. D. Schauder, S. L. Williams, T. R. Rietman, D. R. Torgerson,
A. Edris. The unified power flow controller: A new approach to power
transmission control. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 1995. 10(2):
1085-1097.

24. P. S. Georgilakis, P. G. Vernados. Flexible AC Transmission System
Controllers: An Evaluation. Materials Science Forum. Switzerland: Trans
Tech Publications. 2011. 399-406.

25. B. R. Hunt, R. L. Lipsman, J. M. Rosenberg, K. R. Coombes, J. E. Osborn, G.
J. Stuck. A Guide to MATLAB for Beginners and Experienced Users. New
York.: Cambridge University Press. 2001.
76
26. B. V. Manikandan, S. C. Raja, P. Venkatesh. Available Transfer Capability
Enhancement with FACTS Devices in the Deregulated Electricity Market.
Journal of electrical Engineerin & Technology. 2011. 6(1): 14-24.

27. A. Kahyaei. Study of UPFC Location for Installing in Power System to
Control Power Flow. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology. 2011. 3(7): 640-649.

28. P. Asare, T. Diez, A. Galli, E. ONeill-Carillo, J. Robertson. An Overview of
Flexible AC Transmission Systems. Indiana.: Purdue University Pudue e-
Pubs. 1994.

29. N. K. Sharma, A. Ghosh, R. K. Varma. A Novel Placement Strategy for
FACTS Controllers. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 2007. 18(3): 982-
987.
30. M. A. Bhaskar, C. Subramani, M. J. Kumar, S. S. Dash, P. Chidambaram.
Volatge Profile Improvement Using Static Var Compensator (SVC) and
Thyristor Controlled Voltage Regulator (TCVR). International Journal of
Recent Trends in Engineering. 2009. 2(7): 86-88.

31. D. Murali, M. Rajaram, N. Reka. Comparison of FACTS Devices for Power
System Stabilty Enhancement. International Journal of Computer
Applications. 2010. 8(4): 30-35.

32. H. Saada. Power System Analysis. New York.: McGraw-Hill. 1999.

33. M. W. Mustafa. Power System Analysis. (3
rd
ed). Skudai.: Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. 2012.

34. M. Y. Hassan. Power System Control. (3
rd
ed). Skudai.: Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia. 2010.

77
35. D. Murali, M. Rajaram. Active and Reactive Power Flow Control using
FACTS Devices. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2010. 9(8):
45-50.

36. P. R. Sharma, A. Kumar, N. Kumar. Optimal Location for Shunt Connected
FACTS Devices in a Series Compensated Long Transmission Line. Turkish
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences. 2007. 15(3): 321-
328.

37. H. O. Bansal, H. P. Agrawal, S. Tiwana, A. R. Singal, L. Shrivasta. Optimal
Location of FACT Devices to Control Reactive Power. International Journal
of Engineering Science and Technology. 2010. 2(6): 1556-1560.

38. K. Vijaykumar. Optimal Location of FACTS Devices for Congestion
Management in Deregulated Power Systems. International Journal of
Computer Applications. 2011. 16(6): 29-37.

39. P.Kannan, S. C. Pandian. Case Study on Power Quality Improvement of
Thirty Bus System with UPFC. International Journal of Computer and
Electrical Engineering. 2011. 3(3): 417-420.













78
APPENDIX 1

Appendix 1a: MATPOWER coding for original IEEE 9-bus test system

function mpc = case9
%% MATPOWER Case Format : Version 2
mpc.version = '2';

%%----- Power Flow Data -----%%
%% system MVA base
mpc.baseMVA = 100;

%% bus data
% bus_i type Pd Qd Gs Bs area Vm Va baseKV zone
Vmax Vmin
mpc.bus = [
1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
5 1 90 30 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
7 1 100 35 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
9 1 125 50 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
];

%% generator data
% bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg mBase status Pmax Pmin
Pc1 Pc2 Qc1min Qc1max Qc2min Qc2max ramp_agc ramp_10 ramp_30
ramp_q apf
mpc.gen = [
1 0 0 300 -300 1 100 1 250 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
2 163 0 300 -300 1 100 1 300 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
3 85 0 300 -300 1 100 1 270 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
];

%% branch data
% fbus tbus r x b rateA rateB rateC ratio
angle status angmin angmax
mpc.branch = [
1 4 0 0.0576 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
3 6 0 0.0586 0 300 300 300 0 0 1 -360 360;
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
8 2 0 0.0625 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
79
9 4 0.01 0.085 0.176 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
];

%%----- OPF Data -----%%
%% area data
% area refbus
mpc.areas = [
1 5;
];

%% generator cost data
% 1 startup shutdown n x1 y1 ... xn yn
% 2 startup shutdown n c(n-1) ... c0
mpc.gencost = [
2 1500 0 3 0.11 5 150;
2 2000 0 3 0.085 1.2 600;
2 3000 0 3 0.1225 1 335;
];

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix 1b: MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test system

function mpc = case9
%% MATPOWER Case Format : Version 2
mpc.version = '2';

%%----- Power Flow Data -----%%
%% system MVA base
mpc.baseMVA = 100;

%% bus data
% bus_i type Pd Qd Gs Bs area Vm Va baseKV zone
Vmax Vmin
mpc.bus = [
1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
5 1 90 30 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
7 1 100 35 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
9 1 125 220 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
];

%% generator data
% bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg mBase status Pmax Pmin
Pc1 Pc2 Qc1min Qc1max Qc2min Qc2max ramp_agc ramp_10 ramp_30
ramp_q apf
mpc.gen = [
1 0 0 300 -300 1 100 1 250 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
2 163 0 300 -300 1 100 1 300 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
80
3 85 0 300 -300 1 100 1 270 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
];

%% branch data
% fbus tbus r x b rateA rateB rateC ratio
angle status angmin angmax
mpc.branch = [
1 4 0 0.0576 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
3 6 0 0.0586 0 300 300 300 0 0 1 -360 360;
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
8 2 0 0.0625 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
9 4 0.01 0.085 0.176 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
];

%%----- OPF Data -----%%
%% area data
% area refbus
mpc.areas = [
1 5;
];

%% generator cost data
% 1 startup shutdown n x1 y1 ... xn yn
% 2 startup shutdown n c(n-1) ... c0
mpc.gencost = [
2 1500 0 3 0.11 5 150;
2 2000 0 3 0.085 1.2 600;
2 3000 0 3 0.1225 1 335;
];


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix 1c: MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test system to
incorporate SVC

function mpc = case9
%% MATPOWER Case Format : Version 2
mpc.version = '2';

%%----- Power Flow Data -----%%
%% system MVA base
mpc.baseMVA = 100;

81
%% bus data
% bus_i type Pd Qd Gs Bs area Vm Va baseKV zone
Vmax Vmin
mpc.bus = [
1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
5 1 90 30 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
7 1 100 35 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
9 1 125 220 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
];

%% generator data
% bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg mBase status Pmax Pmin
Pc1 Pc2 Qc1min Qc1max Qc2min Qc2max ramp_agc ramp_10 ramp_30
ramp_q apf
mpc.gen = [
1 0 0 300 -300 1 100 1 250 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
2 163 0 300 -300 1 100 1 300 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
3 85 0 300 -300 1 100 1 270 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
];

%% branch data
% fbus tbus r x b rateA rateB rateC ratio
angle status angmin angmax
mpc.branch = [
1 4 0 0.0576 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
3 6 0 0.0586 0 300 300 300 0 0 1 -360 360;
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
8 2 0 0.0625 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
9 4 0.01 0.085 0.176 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
];

%%----- OPF Data -----%%
%% area data
% area refbus
mpc.areas = [
1 5;
];

%% generator cost data
% 1 startup shutdown n x1 y1 ... xn yn
% 2 startup shutdown n c(n-1) ... c0
mpc.gencost = [
82
2 1500 0 3 0.11 5 150;
2 2000 0 3 0.085 1.2 600;
2 3000 0 3 0.1225 1 335;
];
%% SVC modelling
k=input('Enter bus number=');
Qd=mpc.bus(k,4);
Qk=input('Enter Qk value between -100 and 100 MVAR =');
Q=Qd+Qk;
mpc.bus(k,4)=Q;




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix 1d: MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test system to
incorporate TCSC

function mpc = case9
%% MATPOWER Case Format : Version 2
mpc.version = '2';

%%----- Power Flow Data -----%%
%% system MVA base
mpc.baseMVA = 100;

%% bus data
% bus_i type Pd Qd Gs Bs area Vm Va baseKV zone
Vmax Vmin
mpc.bus = [
1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
5 1 90 30 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
7 1 100 35 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
9 1 125 220 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
];

%% generator data
% bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg mBase status Pmax Pmin
Pc1 Pc2 Qc1min Qc1max Qc2min Qc2max ramp_agc ramp_10 ramp_30
ramp_q apf
mpc.gen = [
1 0 0 300 -300 1 100 1 250 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
2 163 0 300 -300 1 100 1 300 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
3 85 0 300 -300 1 100 1 270 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
];

83
%% branch data
% fbus tbus r x b rateA rateB rateC ratio
angle status angmin angmax
mpc.branch = [
1 4 0 0.0576 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
3 6 0 0.0586 0 300 300 300 0 0 1 -360 360;
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
8 2 0 0.0625 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
9 4 0.01 0.085 0.176 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
];

%%----- OPF Data -----%%
%% area data
% area refbus
mpc.areas = [
1 5;
];

%% generator cost data
% 1 startup shutdown n x1 y1 ... xn yn
% 2 startup shutdown n c(n-1) ... c0
mpc.gencost = [
2 1500 0 3 0.11 5 150;
2 2000 0 3 0.085 1.2 600;
2 3000 0 3 0.1225 1 335;
];
%% TCSC modelling
k=input('Enter branch number=');
Xline=mpc.branch(k,4);
r=input('Enter rTCSC value between -0.7 and 0.2 =');
Xtcsc=r*Xline;
Xij=Xline+Xtcsc;
mpc.branch(k,4)=Xij;


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Appendix 1e: MATPOWER coding for modified IEEE 9-bus test system to
incorporate UPFC

function mpc = case9
%% MATPOWER Case Format : Version 2
mpc.version = '2';

%%----- Power Flow Data -----%%
%% system MVA base
84
mpc.baseMVA = 100;

%% bus data
% bus_i type Pd Qd Gs Bs area Vm Va baseKV zone
Vmax Vmin
mpc.bus = [
1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
5 1 90 30 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
7 1 100 35 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
9 1 125 220 0 0 1 1 0 345 1 1.1 0.9;
];

%% generator data
% bus Pg Qg Qmax Qmin Vg mBase status Pmax Pmin
Pc1 Pc2 Qc1min Qc1max Qc2min Qc2max ramp_agc ramp_10 ramp_30
ramp_q apf
mpc.gen = [
1 0 0 300 -300 1 100 1 250 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
2 163 0 300 -300 1 100 1 300 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
3 85 0 300 -300 1 100 1 270 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0;
];

%% branch data
% fbus tbus r x b rateA rateB rateC ratio
angle status angmin angmax
mpc.branch = [
1 4 0 0.0576 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
4 5 0.017 0.092 0.158 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
5 6 0.039 0.17 0.358 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
3 6 0 0.0586 0 300 300 300 0 0 1 -360 360;
6 7 0.0119 0.1008 0.209 150 150 150 0 0 1 -360
360;
7 8 0.0085 0.072 0.149 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
8 2 0 0.0625 0 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360 360;
8 9 0.032 0.161 0.306 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
9 4 0.01 0.085 0.176 250 250 250 0 0 1 -360
360;
];

%%----- OPF Data -----%%
%% area data
% area refbus
mpc.areas = [
1 5;
];

%% generator cost data
% 1 startup shutdown n x1 y1 ... xn yn
85
% 2 startup shutdown n c(n-1) ... c0
mpc.gencost = [
2 1500 0 3 0.11 5 150;
2 2000 0 3 0.085 1.2 600;
2 3000 0 3 0.1225 1 335;
];
%% UPFC modelling
k=input('Enter branch number=');
Xline=mpc.branch(k,4);
r=input('Enter Kupfc value between -0.7 and 0.2 =');
Xupfc=r*Xline;
Xij=Xline+Xupfc;
mpc.branch(k,4)=Xij;

i=mpc.branch(k,1);
Qd=mpc.bus(i,4);
Qk=input('Enter Qk value between -100 and 100 MVAR =');
Q=Qd+Qk;
mpc.bus(i,4)=Q;


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




















86
APPENDIX 2

Appendix 2a: Power flow result of original IEEE 9-bus test system








87
Appendix 2b: Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system








88
Appendix 2c: Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating SVC at bus 9 and SVC reactive power, Q
k
= -100 MVAR







89
Appendix 2d: Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating TCSC at branch 9 and degree of compensation, k = -0.7







90
Appendix 2e: Power flow result of modified IEEE 9-bus test system after
incorporating UPFC at branch 9 and at degree of compensation, k = -0.7 and reactive
power Q
k
= -100 MVAR