Sei sulla pagina 1di 60

Page | 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The increasing number of power system blackouts in many countries in recent years, is a
major source of concern. Power engineers are very interested in preventing blackouts and
ensuring that a constant and reliable electricity supply is available to all customers. Incipient
voltage instability, which may result from continues load growth or system contingencies, is
essentially a local phenomenon. However, sequences of events accompanying voltage
instability may have disastrous effects, including a resultant low-voltage profile in a
significant area of the power network, known as the voltage collapse phenomenon. Severe
instances of voltage collapse, including the August 2003 blackout in North - Eastern U.S.A
and Canada, have highlighted the importance of constantly maintaining an acceptable level
of voltage stability. The design and analysis of accurate methods to evaluate the voltage
stability of a power system and predict incipient voltage instability, are therefore of special
interest in the field of power system protection and planning. In planning and operating
power systems, the analysis of voltage stability for a given system state involves the
examination of two aspects:

a) Proximity: how close is the system to voltage instability?
Distance to instability may be measured in terms of physical quantities, such as load level,
active power flow through a critical interface and reactive power reserve.
b) Mechanism: how and when voltage instability occurs, what are the key contributing
factors, what are the voltage-weak points, and what areas arc involved? What measures are
most effective in improving voltage stability?

Proximity gives a measure of voltage security whereas mechanism provides information
useful in determining system modifications or operating strategies which could be used to
prevent voltage instability.
[2]

CHAPTER 2
VOLTAGE STABILITY

The voltage stability of a power system refers to its ability to properly maintain steady,
acceptable voltage levels at all buses in the network at all times, even after being subjected to
a disturbance or contingency. A power system may enter a condition of voltage instability
when the system is subjected to a steady increase in load demand or a change in operating
conditions, or a disturbance (loss of generation in an area, loss of major transformer or major
transmission line). This causes an increased demand in reactive power. Voltage instability is
characterized by gradually decreasing voltage levels at one or more nodes in the power
system. Both static and dynamic approaches are used to analyze the problem of voltage
stability. Dynamic analysis provides the most accurate indication of the time responses of the
system.

Voltage stability is indeed a dynamic phenomenon and can be studied using extended
transient/midterm stability simulations. However, such simulations do not readily provide
sensitivity information or the degree of stability. They are time consuming in terms of CPU
and engineering required for analysis of results. Therefore, the application of dynamic
simulations is limited to investigation of specific voltage collapse situations, including fast or
transient voltage collapse and for coordination of protection and controls. Voltage stability
analysis often requires examination of a wide range of system conditions and a large number
of contingency scenarios. For such applications, the approach based on steady state analysis
is more attractive and if used properly, can provide much insight into the voltage/reactive
power problem.

2.1 Reasons of Voltage Collapse

Voltage collapse is a process in which, the appearance of sequential events together with the
voltage instability in a large area of system can lead to the case of unacceptable low voltage
[3]

condition in the network, if no preventive action is committed. Occurrence of a disturbance
or load increasing can leads to excessive demand of reactive power. Therefore, system will
show voltage instability. If additional resources provide sufficient reactive power support, the
system will be established in a stable voltage level. However, sometimes there are not
sufficient reactive power resources and the excessive demand of reactive power can leads to
voltage collapse.

Voltage collapse can be initiated due to small changes of system conditions (e.g. load
increasing) as well as large disturbances (e.g. line outage or generation unit outage). Under
these conditions, shunt FACTS devices such as SVC and STATCOM can improve the
system security with fast and controlled injection of reactive power to the system. However,
when the voltage collapse is due to excessive load increasing, FACTS devices cannot prevent
the voltage collapse and only postpone it until they reach to their maximum limits. Under
these situations, the only way to prevent the voltage collapse is load curtailment or load
shedding. So, reactive power control using FACTS devices is more effective in large
disturbances and contingencies should be considered in voltage stability analysis.
So the principle causes of voltage instability are:
- The load on the transmission lines is too high.
- The voltage source is too far from the load centre.
- The source voltages are very low.
- There is insufficient load reactive compensation.

2.2 Analysis and Methods of Prevention of Voltage Instability

A number of special algorithms have been proposed in the literature for voltage stability
analysis using the static approach. In general, these have not found widespread practical
application and utilities tend to depend largely on conventional power flow programs to
determine voltage collapse levels of various points in a network. However, this approach is
laborious and does not provide sensitivity information useful in making design decisions.

[4]

Some utilities use Q-V curves at a small number of load buses to determine the proximity to
voltage collapse and to establish system design criteria based on Q and V margins
determined from the curves. One problem with the Q-V curve method is that it is generally
not known apriori at which buses the curves should be generated. In producing a Q-V curve,
the system in the neighborhood of the bus is unduly stressed and results may be misleading.
In addition, by focusing on a small number of buses, system-wide problems may not be
readily recognized.

An approach using V-Q sensitivity and piecewise linear power flow analysis to find the
margin, measured in terms of total load growth, between a given operating condition and the
voltage collapse point is already described. There has been some indication that the linear
power flow solution may not be sufficiently accurate as the collapse point is approached.
Also, V-Q sensitivity information could be misleading when applied to a large system having
more than one area with voltage stability problems.

Most of the approaches proposed to date use conventional power flow models to represent
the system steady state. This may not always be appropriate, especially as the system
approaches critical condition. There is a need to consider more detailed steady state models
for key system components such as generators, SVCs, induction motors and voltage
dependent static loads. Load characteristics in particular could be critical and expanded sub-
transmission representation in the voltage collapse areas may be necessary.

There is a need for analytical tools capable of predicting voltage collapse in complex
networks, accurately quantifying stability margins and power transfer limits, identifying
voltage-weak points and areas susceptible to voltage instability, and identifying key
contributing factors and sensitivities that provide insight into system characteristics to assist
in developing remedial actions.

Modal analysis approach with the objective of meeting the above requirements is used
instead of the conventional methods. It involves the computation of a small number of
eigenvalues and the associated eigenvectors of a reduced Jacobian matrix which retains the
[5]

Q-V relationships in the network. However, by using the reduced Jacobian instead of the
system state matrix, the focus is on voltage and reactive power characteristics. The
eigenvalues of the Jacobian identify different modes through which the system could become
voltage unstable. The magnitude of the eigenvalues provides a relative measure of proximity
to instability. The eigenvectors, on the other hand, provide information related to the
mechanism of loss of voltage stability. Fast analytical algorithms for selective computation
of a specified number of the smallest eigenvalues make the approach suitable for the analysis
of large complex power systems.

2.3 Characteristics of Reactive Compensating Devices

There are different types of reactive compensating devices. How these devices influence
voltage stability are described below.

(a)Shunt capacitors

By far the most inexpensive means of providing reactive power and voltage support is the
use of shunt capacitors. They can be effectively used up to a certain point to exceed the
voltage stability limits by correcting the receiving end power factors. They can also be used
to free up spinning reactive reserve in generators and thereby help prevent voltage collapse
in many situations.
Shunt capacitors, however, have a number of inherent limitations from the viewpoint of
voltage stability and control:
- In heavily shunt capacitor compensated systems, the voltage regulations tend to be
poor.
- Beyond a certain level of compensation, stable operation is unattainable with shunt
capacitors.
- The reactive power generated by shunt capacitors is proportional to the square of the
voltage; during system conditions of low voltage the var support drops, thus
compounding the problem.

[6]

(b) Regulated shunt compensation

A static var system (SVS) of finite size will regulate up to its maximum capacitive output.
There is no voltage control on instability problems within the regulating range. When pushed
to the limit, an SVS becomes a simple capacitor. The possibility of this leading to voltage
instability must be recognized.
A synchronous condenser, unlike an SVS, has an internal voltage source. It continues to
supply reactive power down to relatively low voltages and contributes to a more stable
voltage performance.


(c) Series capacitors

Series capacitors are self regulating. The reactive power supplied by series capacitors is
proportional to square of the line current and is independent of the bus voltages. This has a
favorable effect on voltage stability.
Series capacitors are ideally suited for effectively shortening long lines. Unlike shunt
capacitors, series capacitors reduce both the characteristics impendence (Z
c
) and the electrical
length of the line. As a result, both voltage regulation and stability are significantly
improved.









[7]

CHAPTER 3
DEFINING FACTS DEVICES

FACTS, an acronym which stands for Flexible AC Transmission System, is an evolving
technology-based solution envisioned to help the utility industry to deal with changes in the
power delivery business. The term FACTS refers to alternating current transmission systems
incorporating power electronic-based and other static controllers to enhance controllability
and increase power transfer capability. Technology concepts were conceived in the 1980s
and projects sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) demonstrated many
of these concepts with laboratory scale circuits.

The concept of Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) was first defined by Hingorani,
N.G. in 1988. Up to now, lots of advanced FACTS devices have been put forward due to the
rapid development of the modem power electronics technology. These FACTS devices have
a large potential ability to make power systems operate in a more flexible, secure and
economic way. Moreover, these FACTS devices can also make the power systems operate in
a more sophisticated way. A good coordination and adaptation is needed to fully exploit the
new characteristics of FACTS. Presently, the studies on FACTS are mainly focused on
FACTS devices developments and their impacts on the power system, such as power flow
modulation and control, transient stability enhancement, small-disturbance stability
improvement and oscillation damping. It is also significant to study the impact of the FACTS
devices on improving performance of power systems such as optimization related software
algorithms in modem Energy Management System (EMS).

3.1 Facts Controller Applications

The simplest way to identify the potential roles to be played by FACTS Controllers is to
examine their functions as they relate to conventional equipment. The definition of FACTS
systems incorporates both power electronic-based and other static controllers to enhance
[8]

controllability and increase power transfer capability. One of the system planners tasks is to
determine which combinations of controllers provide both the capacity to supply the reactive
power, dynamic reserve and continuous regulation needed for the application. Table 1 lists
the main functions that can be performed by FACTS Controllers and show both FACTS and
other conventional equipment that performs these functions.

Table 1- System Control Functions
Function Non FACTS Control Methods FACTS Controllers
Voltage
Control
Electric generators
Synchronous Condensers
Conventional Transformer tap-changer
Conventional Shunt Capacitor/Reactor
Conventional Series Capacitor/Reactor
Static Var Compensator (SVC)
Static Synchronous Compensator
(STATCOM)
Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
Superconducting Energy Storage
(SMES)
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)
Convertible Static Compensator (CSC)
Active
and
Reactive
Power
Flow
Control
Generator schedules
Transmission line switching
Phase Angle Regulator (PAR)
Series Capacitor (switched or fixed)
High Voltage Direct Current
Transmission (HVDC)
Interphase Power Controller (IPC)
Thyristor controlled Series Capacitor
(TCSC)
Thyristor Controlled Series Reactor
(TCSR)
Thyristor Controlled Phase Shifting
Transformer (TCPST)
UPFC
Static Synchronous Series Compensator
(SSSC)
Interline Power Flow Controller (IPFC)
[9]

Transient
Stability
Braking Resistor
Excitation Enhancement
Special Protection Systems
Independent Pole Tripping
Fast Relay Schemes
Fast Valving
Line Sectioning
HVDC
Thyristor Controlled Braking Resistor
(TCBR)
SVC, STATCOM, TCSC, TCPST,
UPFC
BESS, SMES, SSSC, CSC, IPFC
Dynamic
Stability
Power System Stabilizer
HVDC
TCSC, SVC, STATCOM, UPFC, SSSC,
TCPST, BESS, SMES, SSSC,CSC,
IPFC
Short
Circuit
Current
Limiting
Switched series reactors
Open circuit breaker arrangements
Thyristor switched series reactor, TCSC,
IPC, SSSC, UPFC; These are secondary
functions of these controllers and their
effectiveness may be limited.

3.2 Overview of Facts Controllers

The value of FACTS applications lies in the ability of the transmission system to reliably
transmit more power or to transmit power under more severe contingency conditions with the
control equipment in operation. If the value of the added power transfer over time is
compared to the purchase and operational costs of the control equipment, relatively complex
and expensive applications may be justified. Other economic considerations include the
market structure, transmission tariff and identification of winners and losers. Realization of
the value added by a proposed transmission project often requires a coordinated
implementation of conventional transmission equipment, possibly including transmission line
segments, FACTS Controllers, coordinated control algorithms and special operating
procedures.
Commonly used FACTS controllers are:
[10]


1. Static Var Compensator (SVC)
2. Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)
3. Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
4. Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)
5. Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC)
6. Static Synchronous Series Compensator (SSSC)
7. Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)
8. Interphase Power Controller (IPC)

3.3 Static Var Compensator (SVC)

The Static Var Compensator used for transmission system applications is a dynamic source
of leading or lagging reactive power. It is comprised of a combination of reactive branches
connected in shunt to the transmission network through a step up transformer. The SVC is
configured with the number of branches required to meet a utility specification as indicated
in Figure 3.1. This specification includes required inductive compensation and required
capacitive compensation. The sum of inductive and capacitive compensation is the dynamic
range of the SVC. One or more thyristor-controlled reactors may continuously vary reactive
absorption to regulate voltage at the high voltage bus. This variation is accomplished by
phase control of the thyristors, which results in the reactor current waveform containing
harmonic components that vary with control phase angle. A filter branch containing a power
capacitor and one or more tuning reactors or capacitors is included to absorb enough of the
harmonic currents to meet harmonic specifications and provide capacitive compensation. The
thyristor switched capacitor is switched on or off with precise timing to avoid transient inrush
currents.
[11]



Figure 3.1 Circuit diagram of a SVC containing a thyristor controlled reactor, a thyristor
switched capacitor and a double tuned filter

3.4 Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM)

The STATCOM shown in Figure 3.2 performs the same voltage regulation and dynamic
control functions as the SVC. However, its hardware configuration and principle of operation
are different. It uses voltage source converter technology that utilizes power electronic
devices (presently gate turn-off thyristors (GTO), GCTs or insulated gate bi-polar transistors
(IGBT)) that have the capability to interrupt current flow in response to a gating command.

Analogous to an ideal electromagnetic generator, the STATCOM can produce a set of three
alternating, almost sinusoidal voltages at the desired fundamental frequency with controllable
magnitude. The angle of the voltage injected by the STATCOM is constrained to be very
nearly in-phase with the transmission network at the point of connection of the coupling
transformer.
[12]



Figure 3.2: STATCOM circuit diagram

When the voltage is higher in magnitude than the system voltage, reactive current with a
phase angle 90 degrees ahead of the voltage phase angle flows through the coupling
transformer. This is analogous to the operation of a shunt capacitor. When the generated
voltage is lower than system voltage, the current phase angle is 90 degrees behind the voltage
phase angle that is analogous to the operation of a shunt reactor. The slight deviation in
voltage phase angle absorbs power needed for the losses in the circuit. For high power
applications a number of six or twelve pulse converters are operated in parallel to meet both
the current rating requirement and the harmonic requirement of the network. Two different
switching patterns, phase displaced converters with electronic devices switched once per
cycle and pulse width modulation, have been used to form the sinusoidal waveform.


3.5 Thyristor controlled series capacitor (TCSC)

The thyristor controlled series capacitor (TCSC) is placed in series with a transmission line
and is comprised of three parallel branches: a capacitor, a thyristor pair in series with a
reactor (TCR), and a metal oxide varistor (MOV) that is required to protect against
overvoltage conditions (see Figure 3.3). The TCSC can function as a series capacitor if the
thyristors are blocked or as variable impedance when the duty cycle of the thyristors is
[13]

varied. Applications of TCSCs currently in service provide impedance variations to damp
inter-area system oscillations. The most economical installations often contain one segment
of thyristor-controlled capacitors in series with one or more segments of conventionally
switched series capacitors.

Figure 3.3: One Line Diagram of the TCSC

3.6 Static synchronous series compensator (SSSC)

A static synchronous series compensator (SSSC) is connected in series with a transmission
line and is comprised of a voltage source converter operated without an external electric
energy source. (See Figure 3.4) This configuration serves as a series compensator whose
output voltage is in quadrature with, and controlled, independently of the transmission line
current.


Figure 3.4: Circuit diagram for a Static Synchronous Series Compensator

[14]

The purpose of the SSSC is to increase or decrease the overall reactive voltage drop across
the line and thereby control the transmitted real electric power. The SSSC may include
transiently rated energy storage or energy absorbing equipment to enhance the dynamic
behaviour of the power system by additional temporary real power compensation, to increase
or decrease momentarily, the overall real (resistive) voltage drop across the line. This action
controls the reactive power flow on the line.

3.7 Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC)

The Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) provides voltage, and power flow control by
using two high power voltage source converters (VSC) coupled via a dc capacitor link.
Figure 3.5 shows the two interconnected converters. VSC 1 is connected like a STATCOM
and VSC 2 is connected as a SSSC in series with the line. With the dc bus link closed, the
UPFC can simultaneously control both real and reactive power flow in the transmission line
by injecting voltage in any phase angle with respect to the bus voltage with the series
converter. The shunt-connected converter supplies real power required by the series
connected converter. With its remaining capacity the shunt converter can regulate bus
voltage.
The UPFC circuit can be reconfigured by use of external switches and possibly additional
transformers to form STATCOM, SSSC, or coupled SSSC circuits.

Figure 3.5: Circuit Diagram of a Unified Power Flow Controller

[15]

Today, most power systems are operating near their steady-state stability limits, which may
result in voltage instability. Flexible ac transmission system (FACTS) devices are good
choices to improve the stability of power systems. Many studies have been carried out on the
use of FACTS devices for voltage and angle stability problems. Taking advantages of the
FACTS devices depends largely on how these devices are placed in the power system,
namely, on their location and size. In a practical power system, allocation of these devices
depends on a comprehensive analysis of steady-state stability, transient stability, small signal
stability, and voltage stability. Moreover, other practical factors such as cost and installation
conditions also need to be considered. In the literature, a tool has been reported based on the
determination of critical modes, which is known as modal analysis.

Modal analysis has been used to locate static Var compensator (SVC) and other shunt
compensators to avoid voltage instability. The setting of many controllable power system
devices, such as HVDC Links and FACTS devices, are based on the issues unrelated to the
damping of oscillations in the system. For instance, an SVC improves transmission system
voltage, thereby enhancing the maximum power transfer limit; static synchronous series
compensator (SSSC) control reduces the transfer impedance of a long transmission line,
enhancing the maximum power transfer limit. In addition to the primary function, the
supplementary damping control is also added, and how to utilize their control capabilities
effectively as stabilizing aids is becoming very important.











[16]

CHAPTER 4
BUS CLASSIFICATIONS AND EIGEN PROPERTIES OF THE
STATE MATRIX

4.1 Bus Classifications

Each bus is defined by four variables: net active power, net reactive power, voltage
magnitude and voltage phase angle. Since there are only two equations per bus, two out of
the four variables must be specified in each bus in order to have a solvable problem.
Buses are classified according to which two out of the four variables are specified:

4.1.1 Load PQ bus:
No generator is connected to the bus; hence the control variables P
G
and Q
G
are zero.
Furthermore, the active and reactive powers drawn by the load P
L
and Q
L
are known from
available measurements. In these types of buses the net active power and net reactive power
are specified, and V and are computed.

4.1.2 Generator PV bus:
A generating source is connected to the bus; the nodal voltage magnitude V is maintained at
a constant value by adjusting the field the current of the generator and hence it generates or
absorbs reactive power. Moreover, the generated active power P
G
is also set at a specified
value. The other two quantities and Q
G
are computed. Constant voltage operation is
possible only if the generator reactive power design limits are not violated, that is, Q
G min
<
Q
G
< Q
G max
.

4.1.3 Generator PQ bus:
If the generator cannot provide the necessary reactive power support to constrain the voltage
magnitude at the specified value then the reactive power is fixed at the violated limit and the
[17]

voltage magnitude is freed. In this case, the generated active power P
G
and reactive power Q
G

are specified, and the nodal voltage magnitude V and phase angle are computed.

4.1.4 Slack (swing) bus:
One of the generator buses is chosen to be the slack bus where the nodal voltage magnitude,
V
slack
, and phase angle
slack
, are specified. There is only one slack bus in power system and
the function of a slack generator is to produce sufficient power to provide for any unmet
system load and for system losses, which are not known in advance of the power flow
calculation. The voltage phase angle at the slack bus
slack
is chosen as reference against
which all other voltage phase angles in the system are measured. It is normal to fix its value
to zero.

- Generator buses are also called regulated buses or voltage controlled buses.

4.2 Eigen properties of The State Matrix

4.2.1 Eigenvalues

The eigenvalues of a matrix are given by the values of the scalar parameter for which exist
non-trivial solutions (i.e. other than = 0) to the equation
A = ... (4.1)
Where
A is n x n matrix (real for a physical system such as power system)
is an n x 1 matrix
To find the eigenvalues above equation may be written in the form
(A- I) = 0 ... (4.2)
For a non-trivial solution
det (A- I) = 0 ... (4.3)
Expansion of the determinant gives the characteristics equation. The n solutions of =
1
,
2,


n
are eigenvalues of A.
[18]

The eigenvalues may be real or complex. If A is real, complex eigenvalues always occurs in
conjugate pairs. Similar matrices have identical eigenvalues. A matrix and its transpose have
the same eigenvalues.

4.2.2 Eigenvectors

For any eigenvalue
i
, the n-column vector
i
which satisfies (4.1) is called right eigenvector
of A associated with eigenvalue
i
. Therefore, right eigenvector is
A
i
=
i

i
i =1,2,..n ... (4.4)

The eigenvector
i
has the form

i =
1i
2i
ni
u (
(
u
(
(
(
(
(
u


Since equation (4.2) is homogenous, k
i
(where k is a scalar) is also a solution. Thus, the
eigenvalues are determined only to within a scalar multiplier.
Similarly, the n-row vector
i
which satisfies

i
A =
i

i
i= 1,2,.n; ... (4.5)
is called the left eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue
i.
The left and right eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues are orthogonal. In
other words, if
i
is not equal to
j,

i
= 0 ... (4.6)
However, in case of eigenvectors corresponding to the same eigenvalues,

i

i
= C
i
... (4.7)
where C
i
is a non-zero constant.
Since, as noted above, the eigenvalues are determined only to within a scalar
multiplier, it is a common practice to normalize these vectors so that


i

i
= 1 ... (4.8)

[19]

4.2.3 Eigenvalue sensitivity

Consider equation (4.4) which defines the eigenvalues and eigenvectors:
A
i
=
i

i
Differentiating with respect to a
kj
(the element of A in k
th
row and j
th
column) gives

kj kj kj kj
i i
i i
i
i
A
A
a a a a
| |
| |

+ = +
c c c c
c c c c

Premultiplying by
i
,and noting that
i

i
= 1 and
i
(A-
i
I) = 0, we see that the above
equation simplifies to

kj kj
i i
i A
a a
|

=
c c
+
c c

All elements of
kj
A
a
c
c
are zero, except for the element in the k
th
row and j
th
column which
is equal to 1. Hence,

kj
ik ji
i
a

|
c
= +
c
... (4.9)
Thus the sensitivity of the eigenvalue
i
to the element a
kj
of the state matrix is equal to the
product of the left eigenvector element
ik
and the right eigenvector element
ji
.


4.2.4 Participation factor

One problem in using right and left eigenvectors individually for identifying the relation
between the states and the modes is that the elements of the eigenvectors are dependent on
units and scaling associated with the the state variables. As a solution to this problem, a
matrix called the participation matrix (P), which combines the right and left eigenvectors as
follows is a measure of the association between the state variables and the modes.

| |
1 2 n P p p p =
With
[20]


1i 1 1
2i 2 2
i
ni
p
p
p
p
i i
i i
ni in
u + ( (
( (
u +
( (
= =
( (
( (
u +


Where

ki
= the element on the k
th
row and i
th
column of the modal matrix
= k
th
entry of the right eigenvector
i
.

ik
= the element on the i
th
row and k
th
column of the modal matrix
=kth entry of the left eigenvector
i.

The element p
ki
=
ik

ki
is termed the Participation factor. It is a measure of the relative
participation of k
th
state variable in the i
th
mode, and vice versa.
Since
ki
measures of the activity of x
k
in the i
th
mode and
ik
weighs the contribution of
this activity to the mode, the product p
ki
measures the net participation. The effect of
multiplying the elements of the left and right eigenvectors is also to make p
ki
dimensionless
(i.e. independent of the choice of the units).
In view of the eigenvector normalization, the sum of the participation factors associated
with any mode
n
ki
i=1
p
| |
|
\ .

or with any state variable


n
ki
k=1
p
| |
|
\ .

is equal to 1.
From equation 9, we see that participation factor p
ki
is actually equal to the sensitivity of the
eigenvalue
i
to the diagonal element akk of the state matrix A

i
ki
kk
p =
a
c
c
... (4.10)








[21]

CHAPTER 5
MODAL ANALYSIS FOR VOLTAGE STABILITY
EVALUATION


A system is voltage stable at a given operating condition if for every bus in the system, bus
voltage magnitude increases as reactive power injection at the same bus is increased. A
system is voltage unstable if for at least one bus in the system bus voltage magnitude
decreases as the reactive power injection at the same bus is increased. In other words, a
system is voltage stable if V-Q sensitivity is positive for every bus and unstable if V-Q
sensitivity is negative for at least one bus.

Modal analysis is a method for voltage stability evaluation. In this method, stability analysis
is done by computing eigenvalues and right and left eigenvectors of a Jacobian matrix which
obtained from the power flow equations. Assume that a power system is located at a primary
operating point. In this operating point, the relations between main power system quantities
(voltage magnitude, voltage angle, injected active power and injected reactive power) can be
expressed by power flow equations as follows:

5.1 Reduced Jacobian Matrix

The linearized steady state system power voltage equations are given by.

P PV
Q QV
P J J
Q J J V
A A ( ( (
=
( ( (
A A

(5.1)
Where,
P = incremental change in bus real power.
Q= incremental change in bus reactive power injection.
u = incremental change in bus voltage angle.
V = incremental change in bus voltage magnitude.

[22]

If the conventional power flow model is used for voltage stability analysis, the Jacobian
matrix in (5.1) is the same as the Jacobian matrix used when the power flow equations are
solved using the Newton-Raphson technique.

System voltage stability is affected by both P and Q. However, at each operating point we
keep P constant and evaluate voltage stability by considering the incremental relationship
between Q and V. This is analogous to the Q-V curve approach. Although incremental
changes in P are neglected in the formulation, the effects of changes in system load or power
transfer levels are taken into account by studying the incremental relationship between Q and
V at different operating conditions.


( )
1
QV Q P PV Q J -J .J .J . V

A = A ...(5.2)
Rearrange (5.2), then

1
R V=J Q

A A ...(5.3)
where,

( )
1
R QV Q P PV J J -J .J .J

= ...(5.4)

To reduce (5.1), let P =0, then.

JR is called the reduced Jacobian matrix of the system. JR is the matrix which directly relates
the bus voltage magnitude and bus reactive power injection. Eliminating the real power and
angle part from the system steady state equations allows us to focus on the study of the
reactive demand and supply problem of the system as well as minimize computational effort.

The program developed also provides the option of performing eigen-analysis of the full
Jacobian matrix. If the full Jacobian is used, however, the results represent the relationship
between (u, V) and (P, Q). Since u is included in the formulation, it is difficult to
discern the relationship between V and (P, Q) which is of primary importance for
voltage stability analysis. Also modal analysis using the full Jacobian matrix is
computationally more expensive than using the reduced Jacobian. For these reasons, the
reduced Jacobian approach was considered.


[23]


5.2 Modes of Voltage Instability
Let
R J = A .(5.5)
where,
= right eigenvector matrix of JR
q = left eigenvector matrix of JR
A = diagonal eigenvalue matrix of JR
From (5.3) and (5.5)

1
V Q q

A = A A ..(5.6)

And

1
v q

= A ..(5.7)
where
v = qV = the vector of modal voltage variations
q= qQ = vector of modal reactive power variations
and

1
q

= ..(5.8)


Equation (5.7) represents uncoupled first order equations. Thus for the i
th
mode:
i i
i
1
v q

= ..(5.9)

The eigenvalue of the reduced Jacobian matrix identify different modes through which the
voltage of system could become unstable. The magnitude of the eigenvalues provides a
relative measure of the proximity to instability. If
i
> 0, the i
th
modal voltage and i
th
modal
reactive power variation are along with the same direction, indicating that the system is
voltage stable. If
i
< 0, the i
th
modal voltage and i
th
modal reactive power variation are along
with the opposite direction, indicating that the system is voltage unstable. In this sense, the
magnitude of
i
determines the degree of stability of the i
th
modal voltage. The smaller the
magnitude of positive
i ,
the closer i
th
modal voltage is to being unstable.

[24]

Using modal analysis, the effect or participation of system buses in voltage instability and
critical modes near the point of collapse can be determined. Relative participation of k
th
bus
to i
th
mode is expressed by bus participation factor as follows:
ki ki ik P = q ..(5.10)
where
ki
and q
ik
are k
th
element of the right and left eigenvectors corresponding to i
th

eigenvalue of J
R
respectively.
Bus participation factors represent the area corresponding to each mode. The larger the
magnitude of P
ki
, the k
th
bus is more effective corrective controls to improve voltage stability.























[25]

CHAPTER 6
PROPOSED METHOD FOR LOCATING FACTS DEVICES

Voltage collapse normally occurs when sources producing reactive power reach their limits
i.e. generators, SVCs or shunt capacitors, and there is not much reactive power supply to
support the load. Therefore, the reactive reserve margin is used as a voltage stability
indicator.

The most advanced solution to compensate reactive power is the use of a Voltage Source
Converter (VSC) incorporated as a variable source of reactive power. These systems offer
several advantages compared to standard reactive power compensation solutions. Reactive
power control generated by generators or capacitor banks alone normally is too slow for
sudden load changes and demanding applications, such as wind farms or arc furnaces.
Compared to other solutions a voltage source converter is able to provide continuous control,
very dynamic behavior due to fast response times and with single phase control also
compensation of unbalanced loads. The ultimate aim is to stabilize the grid voltage and
minimize any transient disturbances.

Voltage collapse is usually initiated by disturbances in a system vulnerable to voltage
instability. Voltage stability could be recognized by modal analysis of power system steady
state Jacobian matrix under contingency condition. If the smallest eigen values of reduced
Jacobian matrix are negative or very close to zero, the voltage instability is possible. Under
these conditions, it is necessary to increase the magnitude of critical modes until the system
security is ensured and voltage stability is achieved. This can be done via corrective
operations such as providing reactive power support with FACTS devices.

Voltage instability is due to the critical modes of reduced Jacobian matrix. Therefore, in the
given proposed method the objective is to determine system buses that have the most effect
on the critical modes. Critical modes are determined based on modal analysis of system
[26]

reduced Jacobian matrix under contingency conditions and the effectiveness of buses on
these critical modes is recognized by their participation factors.

In the proposed method, for each contingency a probabilistic index is defined which
evaluates the relative participation of each bus in voltage instability caused by all of the
critical eigenvalues corresponding to that contingency:

m
ij
i outage
j
j=1
P
PCM= P (k)

| |

|
\ .

..(6.1)
where
PCM
i
= contribution of bus i to voltage instability caused by critical modes under k
th

contingency state
P
outage
= likelihood of k
th
contingency occurring corresponding to outage of line k
m = number of critical eigenvalues in k
th
contingency
P
ij
= participation factor of bus i to critical eigenvalue j

j
= critical eigenvalue j

Bus Participation Factors

The relative participation of bus k in mode i is given by the bus participation factor. It
determines the areas associated with each mode. The sum of all bus participations for each
mode is equal to unity because the right and left eigenvectors are normalized. The size of bus
participation in a given mode indicates the effectiveness of remedial actions applied at that
bus in stabilizing the mode.
There are generally two types of modes. The first type has very few buses with large
participations and all the other buses with close to zero participation, indicating that the mode
is much localized. The second type has many buses with small but similar degree of
participations, and the rest of the buses with close to zero participations; this indicates that
the mode is not localized. A typical localized mode occurs if a single load bus is connected to
a very strong network through a long transmission line. A typical non-localized mode occurs
when a region within a large system is loaded up and the main reactive support for this
region is exhausted.
[27]


The convention taken is that the term critical mode is used to identify all eigenvalue whose
magnitudes are smaller than a prescribed critical value (
critical
). The critical value is
determined based on the bus voltage magnitude profile in the system.

The probabilistic index defined above represents the relative contribution of each bus to
critical modes of kth contingency condition. Then, the total participation in all critical modes
(TPCM) for each bus was calculated considering all possible contingencies by following
equation:

L m
ij
i outage
j
k=1 j=1
P
TPCM= . P (k)

| |

|
\ .

..(6.2)
where
TPCM
i
= the total participation of bus i in all critical modes under all possible contingencies
and L is the number of possible contingencies

For calculation of TPCM the outage of all lines is considered. If system has critical modes in
normal state (i.e. without any outage) due to special operating conditions, then this conditions
could be included in above relation with consideration of corresponding probability.

TPCM demonstrates the relative contribution of each bus to system voltage instability under
all possible system states. According to the relation above, the larger the magnitude of bus
participation factor in critical modes, that bus is more effective in voltage instability. On the
other hand, the smaller the magnitude of positive
j,
that mode is more critical. In addition,
bus contributions to voltage instability under contingencies are weighted by the likelihood of
contingencies occurring. Consequently, contingencies with higher probability will be more
important in locating FACTS devices.

TPCM values are calculated for every bus using above equation. Buses are then ranked by
their corresponding TPCM values. In general, the larger value a bus has the more effective it
will be. The bus with the largest TPCM is considered as the best location for one shunt
FACTS device, because according to definition of TPCM, that bus is more effective in more
[28]

probable contingencies (i.e. larger P
outage
(k)) or is more effective in more critical modes (i.e.
smaller
j
).

For a large- scale power system, more than one FACTS device may have to be installed in
order to achieve the desired performance. However, budgetary constraints force the utilities
to limit the number of FACTS devices to be placed in a given system. Given such a limit on
the total number of FACTS devices to be installed in a power system, the location of the next
controllers can be determined according to the ranking of buses in an iterative approach. At
each step, one FACTS device is installed at the bus with the largest TPCM value. Installation
of a controller in the determined location mitigates the critical modes caused by that bus and
other buses close to it. Therefore, the ranking of buses after the next iteration does not
necessarily match the previous one. The flowchart shown below demonstrates the proposed
strategy of FACTS devices locating.


















[29]

6.1. Flowchart of Proposed Method


























System data

j
<
critical


K=1
Outage of line
k
Load flow
Modal analysis and determination of eigenvalues
Calculation of bus participation factor (P
ij
) for all critical modes
Ranking of buses based on associated TPCM values
Installation of FACTS at the top bus
End
All contingencies
are considered?
Need to install another
FACTS device?

TPCM
i
=

i
k=k +1
No
No
Yes
No
[30]

CHAPTER 7
CASE STUDY

In this report standard IEEE 14 bus is considered. Given flowchart shown in figure shows the
proposed approach of placing FACTS in a power system.



Figure-7.1 : IEEE 14 bus System
[31]

We will analyze two cases:
Case 1: when load and generation of the system is scaled by the factor of 0.95.
Sub case 1: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.05pu
Sub case 2: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.0pu

Case 2: when load and generation of the system is scaled by the factor of 1.3.
Sub case 1: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.05pu
Sub case 2: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.0pu

Performing load flow for the normal state of the system, the smallest eigenvalue of the
reduced Jacobian matrix is determined as
min
= 2.71. With the assumption of
critical
=1, the
calculated eigenvalue is not critical. Then, contingency analyses corresponding to line
outages are performed. Here it has been assumed that the failure probability of all lines is
assumed to be 0.02. The eigenvalue of reduced Jacobian matrix is calculated in each step. In
the table 2 three smallest eigenvalues of each state are shown and the corresponding critical
eigenvalues are specified by coloured cell from the table. It is clear that critical eigenvalues
exist only in two contingencies corresponding to the outage of line 1 and line 10. Using
modal analysis, bus participation factors associated with the critical eigenvalues are
calculated. The TPCM value of buses shown in table 3 is calculated using the formula given
above. From table 3 we can infer that bus 12 has the largest TPCM. So it is chosen as the best
location to place first FACTS device.

Table 2 the three smallest eigenvalues for different contingencies

Contingency

min1

min2

min3

1 line(1-2) 0.1202 2.5076 3.350
2 line(1-5) 2.6334 5.5253 7.6623
3 line(2-3) 2.5139 4.1422 5.5968
4 line(2-4) 2.6389 5.5318 7.6599
5 line(2-5) 2.6766 5.5468 7.6689
6 line(3-4) 2.6501 5.5453 7.6784
7 line(4-5) 2.6193 5.5263 7.6513
8 line(4-7) 2.4671 5.5083 7.6689
9 line(4-9) 2.4350 5.5267 7.6689
[32]

10 line(5-6) 0.4627 4.000 6.2199
11 line(6-11) 1.3764 4.5484 7.0003
12 line(6-12) 2.2747 3.4231 6.8293
13 line(6-13) 1.6374 3.7727 7.3455
14 line(7-8) 2.0172 6.5611 14.3417
15 line(7-9) 1.7331 5.4479 7.6090
16 line(9-10) 1.9465 3.0652 9.3284
17 line(9-14) 1.9693 3.0471 6.8017
18 line(10-11) 2.1765 5.3288 5.5991
19 line(12-13) 2.6711 4.1235 5.9822
20 line(13-14) 1.7820 5.4382 5.6578



Table 3- TPCM values of buses

Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.0119
2 0.0090 9 0.0166
3 0.0096 10 0.0183
4 0.0101 11 0.0207
5 0.0092 12 0.0242
6 0.0216 13 0.0235
7 0.0134 14 0.0212


Case 1: when load and generation of the system is scaled by the factor of 0.95.
Sub case 1: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.05pu

After installing the shunt FACTS controller which may be a STATCOM at bus 12, it is now
changed into PV bus. The voltage of this bus is constant until the shunt FACTS device
reaches its reactive power limit. The voltage of the bus 12 is set at 1.05 pu. The sufficient
capacity to keep the voltage of bus 12 constant under all contingencies is 8 MVAr. After
installing STATCOM at bus 12, the contingency analysis was performed again. The result is
shown in table 4 and 5. According to table 4, it is clear that the smallest eigenvalue in each
contingency condition is increased considerably. However, the outage of line 1 still causes an
eigenvalue smaller than the critical value, because FACTS controller at a bus is installed
which is far from this line. When this line is out of circuit, injection of reactive power to bus
12 cannot influence considerably the reactive losses caused by the overload of line 2.
[33]

Table 4 the smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of STATCOM
at Bus 12

Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 2.7971
1 line(1-2) 0.5987 11 line(6-11) 1.3906
2 line(1-5) 2.7109 12 line(6-12) 2.8100
3 line(2-3) 2.5755 13 line(6-13) 2.4062
4 line(2-4) 2.7171 14 line(7-8) 2.0627
5 line(2-5) 2.7574 15 line(7-9) 1.7804
6 line(3-4) 2.7289 16 line(9-10) 1.9465
7 line(4-5) 2.6969 17 line(9-14) 2.1620
8 line(4-7) 2.5353 18 line(10-11) 2.2323
9 line(4-9) 2.5043 19 line(12-13) 2.6711
10 line(5-6) 1.8798 20 line(13-14) 1.7820



Table 5 TPCM values of buses



Depending on the available budget, the placement of FACTS devices can proceed by
following the new ranked list of table 5, where bus 8 as a PV bus will be the second choice.
This means that reactive power generation capacity at this bus is need to be increased.
However, reactive power capacity of this bus can be kept constant and install the FACTS
device in next top bus which is bus 7. To keep the voltage of bus 7 and 12 constant under all
contingencies, FACTS devices of capacities 22MVAr and 11MVAr respectively need to be
installed at these buses. After installing the second FACTS device, all eigenvalues are
increased and the critical eigenvalues are disappeared. Table 6 represents the smallest
eigenvalue in each system state. Now, there is no critical eigenvalue and therefore, TPCM
value for all buses is zero.
Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.0043
2 0.0026 9 0.0039
3 0.0029 10 0.0037
4 0.0027 11 0.0025
5 0.0022 12 0
6 0.0010 13 0.0008
7 0.0040 14 0.0028
[34]

Table 6 the smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of STATCOM
at Bus 7
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 3.8519
1 line(1-2) 2.0977 11 line(6-11) 1.9540
2 line(1-5) 2.7668 12 line(6-12) 3.8724
3 line(2-3) 3.7513 13 line(6-13) 3.1345
4 line(2-4) 3.8393 14 line(7-8) 2.0627
5 line(2-5) 3.8466 15 line(7-9) 1.7835
6 line(3-4) 3.8452 16 line(9-10) 1.9465
7 line(4-5) 3.8348 17 line(9-14) 2.1620
8 line(4-7) 3.8352 18 line(10-11) 3.5056
9 line(4-9) 3.5957 19 line(12-13) 3.6140
10 line(5-6) 2.5203 20 line(13-14) 2.4246

Case 1: when load and generation of the system is scaled by the factor of 0.95.
Sub case 2: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.0 pu

The sufficient capacity to keep the voltage of bus 12 constant under all contingencies is 39
MVAr. The result is shown in table 7 and 8. However, the outage of line 1 still causes an
eigenvalue smaller than the critical value, because FACTS controller at a bus is installed
which is far from this line. When this line is out of circuit, injection of reactive power to bus
12 cannot influence considerably the reactive losses caused by the overload of line 2.

Table 7 the smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of STATCOM
at Bus 12
Contingency

min
Contingency

min

Normal state 2.0085
1 line(1-2) 0.5646 11 line(6-11) 1.3340
2 line(1-5) 1.1580 12 line(6-12) 2.7948
3 line(2-3) 1.1261 13 line(6-13) 2.3643
4 line(2-4) 1.1921 14 line(7-8) 2.0174
5 line(2-5) 1.9253 15 line(7-9) 1.2001
6 line(3-4) 1.9251 16 line(9-10) 1.2815
7 line(4-5) 1.9453 17 line(9-14) 1.7183
8 line(4-7) 1.8600 18 line(10-11) 1.9767
9 line(4-9) 1.8111 19 line(12-13) 1.5518
10 line(5-6) 1.8361 20 line(13-14) 1.5732
[35]

Depending on the available budget, the placement of FACTS devices can proceed by
following the new ranked list of table 5, where bus 8 as a PV bus will be the second choice.
This means that reactive power generation capacity at this bus is need to be increased.
However, reactive power capacity of this bus can be kept constant and install the FACTS
device in next top bus which is bus 7. To keep the voltage of bus 7 and 12 constant under all
contingencies, FACTS devices of capacities 79MVAr and 39MVAr respectively need to be
installed at these buses. After installing the second FACTS device, all eigenvalues are
increased and the critical eigenvalues are disappeared. Table 9 represents the smallest
eigenvalue in each system state. Now, there is no critical eigenvalue and therefore, TPCM
value for all buses is zero.


Table 8 TPCM values of buses

.









Table 9 The smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of STATCOM
at Bus 7
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 2.7020
1 line(1-2) 1.9799 11 line(6-11) 1.8328
2 line(1-5) 2.5187 12 line(6-12) 2.3486
3 line(2-3) 2.5317 13 line(6-13) 2.6823
4 line(2-4) 2.6570 14 line(7-8) 2.7020
5 line(2-5) 2.6749 15 line(7-9) 1.1823
6 line(3-4) 2.6599 16 line(9-10) 1.2832
7 line(4-5) 2.6689 17 line(9-14) 1.7677
8 line(4-7) 2.6532 18 line(10-11) 2.5957
9 line(4-9) 2.5642 19 line(12-13) 2.0387
10 line(5-6) 2.3899 20 line(13-14) 2.1618
Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.0045
2 0.0028 9 0.0041
3 0.0031 10 0.0039
4 0.0029 11 0.0026
5 0.0024 12 0
6 0.0011 13 0.0008
7 0.0042 14 0.0030
[36]

Case 2: when load and generation of the system is scaled by the factor of 1.3.

In this case contingency of line (1-2) is not considered because line (1-2) is double circuit
line. In case of line overloaded by 30 % all lines are overstressed. Here it is assumed that if
one of the double circuit line is out then other will supply the power but in case of overloaded
line both the line will out simultaneously if contingency of line (1-2 ) is considered. So
outage of line (1-2) means that the system will collapse and iterative solution will not
converge. So in this case contingency of line (1-2) has been excluded. Here
min
= 0.4361

Table 10 the three smallest eigenvalues for different contingencies
Contingency

min1

min2

min3

1 line(1-2)
2 line(1-5) 0.2126 2.4178 4.2210
3 line(2-3) 0.0420 1.6399 2.5058
4 line(2-4) 0.3435 2.6426 5.0805
5 line(2-5) 0.3726 2.7064 5.1902
6 line(3-4) 0.4214 2.7715 3.5489
7 line(4-5) 0.3877 2.3298 5.1267
8 line(4-7) 0.2835 2.1950 4.6918
9 line(4-9) 0.3714 2.7260 4.8339
10 line(5-6) 0.0540 1.6501 4.1749
11 line(6-11) 0.4131 1.6571 3.4896
12 line(6-12) 0.4171 2.3385 4.6398
13 line(6-13) 0.3831 2.3968 4.2838
14 line(7-8) 0.4191 3.3105 5.2955
15 line(7-9) 0.2852 1.6746 3.3423
16 line(9-10) 0.3853 1.4649 3.0724
17 line(9-14) 0.3825 1.4869 3.5869
18 line(10-11) 0.4351 1.6412 4.5321
19 line(12-13) 0.4358 2.5315 4.2794
20 line(13-14) 0.4296 1.7648 3.5948

Table 11 TPCM values of buses
Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.1122
2 0.0093 9 0.1661
3 0.0942 10 0.1892
4 0.0573 11 0.1937
5 0.0429 12 0.2034
6 0.1696 13 0.2045
7 0.1226 14 0.2205
[37]

Sub case 1: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.0 pu

Table 12 The smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of
STATCOM at Bus 14
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 1.1964
1 line(1-2) 11 line(6-11) 1.0729
2 line(1-5) 0.9250 12 line(6-12) 1.1743
3 line(2-3) 0.8694 13 line(6-13) 1.1761
4 line(2-4) 1.0839 14 line(7-8) 1.2691
5 line(2-5) 1.1200 15 line(7-9) 1.3600
6 line(3-4) 1.1868 16 line(9-10) 0.7479
7 line(4-5) 1.1325 17 line(9-14) 0.7792
8 line(4-7) 1.0196 18 line(10-11) 1.1384
9 line(4-9) 1.1622 19 line(12-13) 1.1396
10 line(5-6) 0.9054 20 line(13-14) 0.7914


Table 13- TPCM values of buses



Table 14 the smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of
STATCOM at Bus 10
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 2.0868
1 line(1-2) 11 line(6-11) 1.6811
2 line(1-5) 1.8001 12 line(6-12) 1.7980
3 line(2-3) 1.6487 13 line(6-13) 2.0172
4 line(2-4) 2.0038 14 line(7-8) 2.1164
5 line(2-5) 2.0076 15 line(7-9) 2.1414
6 line(3-4) 2.0828 16 line(9-10) 1.7695
7 line(4-5) 2.0640 17 line(9-14) 2.0557
8 line(4-7) 2.0702 18 line(10-11) 1.2281
9 line(4-9) 2.0624 19 line(12-13) 1.8468
10 line(5-6) 1.4844 20 line(13-14) 1.3191
Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.0117
2 0.0010 9 0.0098
3 0.0060 10 0.0232
4 0.0048 11 0.0227
5 0.0041 12 0.0196
6 0.0165 13 0.0151
7 0.0098 14 0
[38]

At bus 14 = (30 MVAr) should be installed
At bus 10 = (30 MVAr) should be installed

Sub case 2: when voltage magnitude is maintained at 1.05pu

After installing the shunt FACTS controller at bus 14, it is now changed into PV bus. The
voltage of this bus is constant until the shunt FACTS device reaches its reactive power limit.
The sufficient capacity to keep the voltage of bus 14 constant under all contingencies is 42
MVAr. After installing STATCOM at bus 14, the contingency analysis was performed again.
The result is shown in table 15 and 16. According to table 15, it is clear that the smallest
eigenvalue in each contingency condition is increased considerably.

Table 15 the smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of
STATCOM at Bus 14
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 3.5642
1 line(1-2) 11 line(6-11) 1.1705
2 line(1-5) 0.9562 12 line(6-12) 3.0202
3 line(2-3) 0.9219 13 line(6-13) 3.3657
4 line(2-4) 1.1151 14 line(7-8) 1.3059
5 line(2-5) 1.1511 15 line(7-9) 2.9256
6 line(3-4) 3.2910 16 line(9-10) 0.7881
7 line(4-5) 1.6518 17 line(9-14) 2.6717
8 line(4-7) 3.4971 18 line(10-11) 3.0428
9 line(4-9) 3.4678 19 line(12-13) 3.5642
10 line(5-6) 0.9459 20 line(13-14) 3.5627

Table 16 TPCM values of buses



Bus no. TPCM Bus No. TPCM
1 0 8 0.0063
2 0.0006 9 0.0045
3 0.0045 10 0.0167
4 0.0030 11 0.0155
5 0.0026 12 0.0117
6 0.0104 13 0.0082
7 0.0051 14 0
[39]

Depending on the budget, the placement of FACTS devices can proceed by following the
new ranked list of table 16, where bus 10 as a PV bus will be the second choice. This means
that reactive power generation capacity at this bus is need to be increased. To keep the
voltage of bus 14 and 10 constant under all contingencies, FACTS devices of capacities
25MVAr need to be installed at these buses. After installing the second FACTS device, all
eigenvalues are increased and the critical eigenvalues are disappeared. Table 17 shows the
smallest eigenvalue in each system state. Now, there is no critical eigenvalue and therefore,
TPCM value for all buses is zero.

Table 17 The smallest eigenvalue associated with contingency after installation of
STATCOM at Bus 10
Contingency
min
Contingency
min

Normal state 5.1801
1 line(1-2) 11 line(6-11) 5.1731
2 line(1-5) 1.8728 12 line(6-12) 3.0202
3 line(2-3) 1.0007 13 line(6-13) 2.0669
4 line(2-4) 2.0770 14 line(7-8) 4.5473
5 line(2-5) 2.1614 15 line(7-9) 4.9207
6 line(3-4) 3.4841 16 line(9-10) 4.4147
7 line(4-5) 4.4192 17 line(9-14) 5.0900
8 line(4-7) 4.6784 18 line(10-11) 5.1765
9 line(4-9) 4.9641 19 line(12-13) 4.1006
10 line(5-6) 1.0972 20 line(13-14) 5.1756











[40]

CHAPTER 8
MATLAB PROGRAMS:

8.1 Mybusout

% This program prints the power flow solution in a tabulated form
% on the screen.
%
% Copyright (C) 1998 by H. Saadat.
%clc

disp(tech)
fprintf(' Maximum Power Mismatch = %g \n', maxerror)
fprintf(' No. of Iterations = %g \n\n', iter)
head =[' Bus Voltage Angle ------Load------ ---Generation--- Injected'
' No. Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Mvar '
' '];
disp(head)
for n=1:bus_no
fprintf(' %5g', n), fprintf(' %7.3f', Vm(n)),
fprintf(' %8.3f', deltad(n)), fprintf(' %9.3f', Pd(n)),
fprintf(' %9.3f', Qd(n)), fprintf(' %9.3f', Pg(n)),
fprintf(' %9.3f ', Qg(n)), fprintf(' %8.3f\n', Qsh(n))
end

8.2 Mylfybus

% This program obtains th Bus Admittance Matrix for power flow solution
% Copyright (c) 1998 by H. Saadat
[41]


j=sqrt(-1); i = sqrt(-1);
nl = linedata(:,1); nr = linedata(:,2);
R = linedata(:,3);X = linedata(:,4);
Bc = j*linedata(:,5); a = linedata(:, 6);
nbr=length(linedata(:,1));
nbus = max(max(nl), max(nr));
Z = R + j*X; y= ones(nbr,1)./Z; %branch admittance
for n = 1:nbr
if a(n) <= 0 a(n) = 1; else end
Ybus=zeros(nbus,nbus); % initialize Ybus to zero
% formation of the off diagonal elements
for k=1:nbr;
Ybus(nl(k),nr(k))=Ybus(nl(k),nr(k))-y(k)/a(k);
Ybus(nr(k),nl(k))=Ybus(nl(k),nr(k));
end
end
% formation of the diagonal elements
for n=1:nbus
for k=1:nbr
if nl(k)==n
Ybus(n,n) = Ybus(n,n)+y(k)/(a(k)^2) + Bc(k);
elseif nr(k)==n
Ybus(n,n) = Ybus(n,n)+y(k) +Bc(k);
else, end
end
end
if condition==14
Ybus(8,8)=Ybus(8,8)+j*0.19;
else
Ybus(9,9)=Ybus(9,9)+j*0.19;
[42]

end
clear Pgg

8.3 Mylfnewton

% Power flow solution by Newton-Raphson method
clc;
bus_no=length(busdata(:,1));
bus_type=ones(bus_no,2);
Pd=zeros(bus_no,1);Qd=zeros(bus_no,1);
Pg=zeros(bus_no,1);Qg=zeros(bus_no,1);
bus_type(:,1)=bus_type(:,1).*busdata(:,2);
bus_type(:,2)=bus_type(:,1);
Vm=busdata(:,3);
delta=busdata(:,4);

Pd=busdata(:,5);Qd=busdata(:,6);
Pg=busdata(:,7);Qg=busdata(:,8);

Qmin=busdata(:,9); Qmax=busdata(:,10);
Qsh=busdata(:,11);
Ym=abs(Ybus); t=angle(Ybus); %calculates the magnitude and angle of Ybus elements.
maxerror=1 ; converge=1;
iter = 0;
%=========================
% Start of iterations
%=========================
clear J JPd JPv JQd JQv dPQ ddeltaV
while maxerror >= accuracy
while maxerror >= accuracy & iter <= maxiter % Test for max. power mismatch
iter = iter+1;
[43]

Psch=(Pg(2:bus_no)-Pd(2:bus_no))/basemva;
Qschtotal=(Qg(2:bus_no)-Qd(2:bus_no))/basemva;

PV_no=sum(bus_type(2:bus_no,2))/2; %calculates the number of PV buses.
Pcal=zeros(bus_no-1,1);
Qcal=zeros(bus_no-1-PV_no,1);
Qsch=Qcal;
j=0;
for i=2:bus_no
if bus_type(i,2)~=2
Qsch(i-1-j,1)=Qschtotal(i-1);
else
j=j+1;
end
end

JPd=zeros(bus_no-1,bus_no-1);
JPv=zeros(bus_no-1,bus_no-1-PV_no);
JQd=zeros(bus_no-1-PV_no,bus_no-1);
JQv=zeros(bus_no-1-PV_no,bus_no-1-PV_no);

for i=2:bus_no
for j=2:bus_no
if i==j
for n=1:bus_no
if n~=i
JPd(i-1,i-1)=JPd(i-1,i-1)-Vm(i)*Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*sin(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));%
diagonal elements of JPd
end
end
else
[44]

JPd(i-1,j-1)=Vm(i)*Vm(j)*Ym(i,j)*sin(delta(i)-delta(j)-t(i,j)); % off diagonal
elements of JPd
end
end
end

for i=2:bus_no
PV_counter=0;
for j=2:bus_no
if bus_type(j,2)==2
PV_counter=PV_counter+1;
else
if i==j
for n=1:bus_no
JPv(i-1,i-1-PV_counter)=JPv(i-1,i-1-PV_counter)+Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*cos(delta(i)-
delta(n)-t(i,n));
end
JPv(i-1,i-1-PV_counter)=JPv(i-1,j-1-PV_counter)+Vm(i)*Ym(i,i)*cos(t(i,i)); %
diagonal elements of JPv
else
JPv(i-1,j-1-PV_counter)=Vm(i)*Ym(i,j)*cos(delta(i)-delta(j)-t(i,j)); % off diagonal
elements of JPd
end
end
end
end

PV_counter=0;
for i=2:bus_no
if bus_type(i,2)==2
PV_counter=PV_counter+1;
[45]

else
for j=2:bus_no
if i==j
for n=1:bus_no
if n~=i
JQd(i-1-PV_counter,i-1)=JQd(i-1-PV_counter,i-
1)+Vm(i)*Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*cos(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));% diagonal elements of JQd
end
end
else
JQd(i-1-PV_counter,j-1)=-Vm(i)*Vm(j)*Ym(i,j)*cos(delta(i)-delta(j)-t(i,j)); % off
diagonal elements of JQd
end
end
end
end

PV_counterQ=0;
for i=2:bus_no
if bus_type(i,2)==2
PV_counterQ=PV_counterQ+1;
else
PV_counterV=0;
for j=2:bus_no
if bus_type(j,2)==2
PV_counterV=PV_counterV+1;
else
if i==j
for n=1:bus_no
JQv(i-1-PV_counterQ,i-1-PV_counterV)=JQv(i-1-PV_counterQ,i-1-
PV_counterV)+Vm(n)* Ym(i,n)*sin(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));
[46]

end
JQv(i-1-PV_counterQ,i-1-PV_counterV)=JQv(i-1-PV_counterQ,i-1-
PV_counterV)-Vm(i)* Ym(i,i)*sin(t(i,i)); % diagonal elements of JPv
else
JQv(i-1-PV_counterQ,j-1-PV_counterV)=Vm(i)*Ym(i,j)*sin(delta(i)-delta(j)-
t(i,j)); % off diagonal elements of JPd
end
end
end
end
end

for k=2:bus_no
for n=1:bus_no
Pcal(k-1,1)=Pcal(k-1,1)+Vm(k)*Vm(n)*Ym(k,n)*cos(delta(k)-delta(n)-t(k,n));
end
end
j=0;
for k=2:bus_no
if bus_type(k,2)~=2
for n=1:bus_no
Qcal(k-1-j,1)=Qcal(k-1-j,1)+Vm(k)*Vm(n)*Ym(k,n)*sin(delta(k)-delta(n)-t(k,n));
end
else
j=j+1;
end
end

dP=Psch-Pcal; dQ=Qsch-Qcal;
dPQ=[dP;dQ];
J=[JPd,JPv;JQd,JQv];
[47]

ddeltaV=J\dPQ;
u=length(ddeltaV);
ddelta=ddeltaV(1:bus_no-1);
dVm=ddeltaV(bus_no:u);
delta(2:bus_no)=delta(2:bus_no)+ddelta;
maxerror=max(abs(dPQ));
j=0;
for i=2:bus_no
if bus_type(i,2)~=2
Vm(i)=Vm(i)+dVm(i-j-1);
else
j=j+1;
end
end

if iter == maxiter & maxerror > accuracy
fprintf('\nWARNING: Iterative solution did not converged after ')
fprintf('%g', iter), fprintf(' iterations.\n\n')
fprintf('Press Enter to terminate the iterations and print the results \n')
converge = 0; pause, else, end

end
for i=2:bus_no
if (bus_type(i,1)==2)&(bus_type(i,2)==2) %generator reaches its limits
Qcal(i)=0;
for n=1:bus_no
Qcal(i)=Qcal(i)+Vm(i)*Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*sin(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));
end
Qgen(i)=Qcal(i)+Qd(i)/basemva;
if Qgen(i)>Qmax(i)/basemva
bus_type(i,2)=0;
[48]

Qg(i)=Qmax(i);
maxerror=1;
elseif Qgen(i)<Qmin(i)/basemva
bus_type(i,2)=0;
Qg(i)=Qmin(i);
maxerror=1;
end
end
end
if iter >= maxiter converge = 0; maxerror=0; end
end
if converge ~= 1
tech= (' ITERATIVE SOLUTION DID NOT CONVERGE'); else,
tech=(' Power Flow Solution by Newton-Raphson Method');
end

deltad=180/pi*delta;
Vm; delta;

Pcal=zeros(bus_no,1);Qcal=zeros(bus_no,1);
for i=1:bus_no
for n=1:bus_no
Pcal(i)=Pcal(i)+Vm(i)*Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*cos(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));
Qcal(i)=Qcal(i)+Vm(i)*Vm(n)*Ym(i,n)*sin(delta(i)-delta(n)-t(i,n));
end
end
Pcal=Pcal*basemva;
Qcal=Qcal*basemva;
for i=1:bus_no
Pg(i)=Pcal(i)+Pd(i);
Qg(i)=Qcal(i)+Qd(i);
[49]

end

PQ_buses=zeros(bus_no-1-PV_no,1);
j=0;
for i=1:bus_no
if bus_type(i,2)==0
j=j+1;
PQ_buses(j)=i;
end
end

8.4 Main
clc;
clear all;
basemva=100; accuracy=.001;
maxiter=50; critical_eigenvalue=1.0;
% BUS BUS Voltage Angle --Load-- --------Generator--------- Injected
% No code Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Qmin Qmax Mvar
busdata=[ 1 1 1.060 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0;
2 2 1.045 0 21.7 12.7 40.0 0.0 -40.0 50.0 0;
3 2 1.010 0 94.2 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0;
4 0 1 0 47.8 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
5 0 1 0 7.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
6 2 1.070 0 11.2 7.5 0.0 0.0 -6.0 24.0 0;
7 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
8 2 1.090 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.0 24.0 0;
9 0 1 0 29.5 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
10 0 1 0 9.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
11 0 1 0 3.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
12 0 1 0 6.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
13 0 1 0 13.5 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
14 0 1 0 14.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0];
[50]


load_scale=0.95;

busdata(:,5)=busdata(:,5)*load_scale; busdata(:,6)=busdata(:,6)*load_scale;
busdata(:,7)=busdata(:,7)*load_scale;

%Line Data
%
% Bus Bus R X B tap setting
% nl nr pu pu pu value
linedata=[ 1 2 0.01938 0.05917 0.0528 1 ;
1 5 0.05403 0.22304 0.0492 1 ;
2 3 0.04699 0.19797 0.0438 1 ;
2 4 0.05811 0.17632 0.0340 1 ;
2 5 0.05695 0.17388 0.0346 1 ;
3 4 0.06701 0.17103 0.0128 1 ;
4 5 0.01335 0.04211 0.0 1 ;
4 7 0.0 0.20912 0.0 0.978 ;
4 9 0.0 0.55618 0.0 0.969 ;
5 6 0.0 0.25202 0.0 0.932 ;
6 11 0.09498 0.19890 0.0 1 ;
6 12 0.12291 0.25581 0.0 1 ;
6 13 0.06615 0.13207 0.0 1 ;
7 8 0.0 0.17615 0.0 1 ;
7 9 0.0 0.11001 0.0 1 ;
9 10 0.03181 0.08450 0.0 1 ;
9 14 0.12711 0.27038 0.0 1 ;
10 11 0.08205 0.19207 0.0 1 ;
12 13 0.22092 0.19988 0.0 1 ;
13 14 0.17093 0.34802 0.0 1 ];

linedata(:,5)=linedata(:,5)/2;
line_no=length(linedata(:,1));
[51]


linedata_outage_percent=[2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;2]/100;

condition=0;

mylfybus % forms the bus admittance matrix
myLFNEWTON % power flow solution by Newton-Raphson method
myBUSOUT % prints the power flow solution on the screen
%================================================
% calculation of eigenvalues
%================================================
JR=JQv-JQd*(inv(JPd)*JPv);
[right_eigenvectors,lambda]=eig(JR)
left_eigenvectors=inv(right_eigenvectors')
lambda_row=eig(JR)',min_lambda=min(lambda_row), min_vec(1)=min_lambda;
eigenvalue_no=length(lambda_row);

%================================================
% bus participation factors
%================================================

bus_participation_factors=right_eigenvectors.*left_eigenvectors;
first_row=[1:eigenvalue_no];
bus_participation_factors_result=[0,first_row;PQ_buses,bus_participation_factors]
Pnormal=1;
for k=1:line_no
Pnormal=Pnormal*(1-linedata_outage_percent(k));
end
NormalTPCM=zeros(bus_no,1)';
for k=1:eigenvalue_no
if lambda_row(k)<=critical_eigenvalue
[52]

PQ_no=length(PQ_buses);
for j=1:PQ_no

NormalTPCM(PQ_buses(j))=NormalTPCM(PQ_buses(j))+Pnormal*bus_participation_facto
rs(j,k)/lambda_row(k);
end
end
end
input('press "Enter" key ...');
%================================================
% Contingency Analysis
%================================================
TPCM=zeros(bus_no,1)';
initial_line_no=line_no;
linedata_saved=linedata;
mainbusdata=busdata;
for condition=[1:13,15:20]
busdata=mainbusdata;
if linedata_outage_percent(condition)~=0
new_linedata=zeros(initial_line_no-1,6);
if condition==1
new_linedata(1:initial_line_no-1,:)=linedata(2:initial_line_no,:);
elseif condition==initial_line_no
new_linedata(1:initial_line_no-1,:)=linedata(1:initial_line_no-1,:);
else
new_linedata(1:condition-1,:)=linedata(1:condition-1,:);
new_linedata(condition:initial_line_no-1,:)=linedata(condition+1:initial_line_no,:);
end
linedata=new_linedata;
mylfybus % forms the bus admittance matrix
myLFNEWTON % power flow solution by Newton-Raphson method
[53]

myBUSOUT % prints the power flow solution on the screen

%====================================================
%calculation of eigenvalues in contingency conditions
%====================================================
JR=JQv-JQd*(inv(JPd)*JPv);
[right_eigenvectors,lambda]=eig(JR)
left_eigenvectors=inv(right_eigenvectors')
lambda_row=eig(JR)',
min_lambda=min(lambda_row),min_vec(condition+1)=min_lambda;
eigenvalue_no=length(lambda_row);
%===================================================
%bus participation factors in contingency conditions
%===================================================
bus_participation_factors=right_eigenvectors.*left_eigenvectors;
first_row=[1:eigenvalue_no];
bus_participation_factors_result=[0,first_row;PQ_buses,bus_participation_factors]
for k=1:eigenvalue_no
if lambda_row(k)<=critical_eigenvalue
PQ_no=length(PQ_buses);
for j=1:PQ_no

TPCM(PQ_buses(j))=TPCM(PQ_buses(j))+linedata_outage_percent(condition)*bus_particip
ation_factors(j,k)/lambda_row(k);
end
end
end
end
condition, input('Press "Enter" key...');
linedata=linedata_saved;
end
[54]


%================================================
% Contingency Analysis for line 14
%================================================
condition=14;

% IEEE 14-BUS TEST SYSTEM
% BUS BUS Voltage Angle --Load-- --------Generator--------- Injected
% No code Mag. Degree MW Mvar MW Mvar Qmin Qmax Mvar
busdata=[ 1 1 1.060 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0;
2 2 1.045 0 21.7 12.7 40.0 0.0 -40.0 50.0 0;
3 2 1.010 0 94.2 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0;
4 0 1 0 47.8 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
5 0 1 0 7.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
6 2 1.070 0 11.2 7.5 0.0 0.0 -6.0 24.0 0;
7 0 1.05 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
8 0 1 0 29.5 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
9 0 1 0 9.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
10 0 1 0 3.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
11 0 1.05 0 6.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
12 0 1 0 13.5 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;
13 0 1 0 14.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0];


busdata(:,5)=busdata(:,5)*load_scale; busdata(:,6)=busdata(:,6)*load_scale;
busdata(:,7)=busdata(:,7)*load_scale;




%Line Data
%
[55]

% Bus Bus R X B tap setting
% nl nr pu pu pu value
linedata=[ 1 2 0.01938 0.05917 0.0528 1 ;
1 5 0.05403 0.22304 0.0492 1 ;
2 3 0.04699 0.19797 0.0438 1 ;
2 4 0.05811 0.17632 0.0340 1 ;
2 5 0.05695 0.17388 0.0346 1 ;
3 4 0.06701 0.17103 0.0128 1 ;
4 5 0.01335 0.04211 0.0 1 ;
4 7 0.0 0.20912 0.0 0.978 ;
4 8 0.0 0.55618 0.0 0.969 ;
5 6 0.0 0.25202 0.0 0.932 ;
6 10 0.09498 0.19890 0.0 1 ;
6 11 0.12291 0.25581 0.0 1 ;
6 12 0.06615 0.13207 0.0 1 ;
7 8 0.0 0.11001 0.0 1 ;
8 9 0.03181 0.08450 0.0 1 ;
8 13 0.12711 0.27038 0.0 1 ;
9 10 0.08205 0.19207 0.0 1 ;
11 12 0.22092 0.19988 0.0 1 ;
12 13 0.17093 0.34802 0.0 1 ];

linedata(:,5)=linedata(:,5)/2;

mylfybus % forms the bus admittance matrix
myLFNEWTON % power flow solution by Newton-Raphson method
myBUSOUT % prints the power flow solution on the screen
%====================================================
%calculation of eigenvalues in contingency conditions
%====================================================
JR=JQv-JQd*(inv(JPd)*JPv);
[right_eigenvectors,lambda]=eig(JR);
left_eigenvectors=inv(right_eigenvectors');
[56]

lambda_row=eig(JR)',min_lambda=min(lambda_row),min_vec(condition+1)=min_lambda;
eigenvalue_no=length(lambda_row);
%===================================================
%bus participation factors in contingency condition
%===================================================
bus_participation_factors=right_eigenvectors.*left_eigenvectors;
first_row=[1:eigenvalue_no];
for j=1:length(PQ_buses)
if PQ_buses(j)>7
PQ_buses(j)=PQ_buses(j)+1;
end
end
bus_participation_factors_result=[0,first_row;PQ_buses,bus_participation_factors]
for k=1:eigenvalue_no
if lambda_row(k)<=critical_eigenvalue
PQ_no=length(PQ_buses);
for j=1:PQ_no

TPCM(PQ_buses(j))=TPCM(PQ_buses(j))+linedata_outage_percent(condition)*bus_particip
ation_factors(j,k)/lambda_row(k);
end
end
end
condition, input('Press "Enter" key ...');
disp('=============================================================');
disp(' Results ');
disp('=============================================================');
TPCM_values=zeros(2,bus_no+1);
TPCM_values(1,:)=[1:1:14];
TPCM_values(2,:)=TPCM

[57]

CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION

In earlier methods number of SVC installed is more in number which is considerably
reduced. Also there is improvement in system voltage in contingency conditions as well as
normal state. In addition, the proposed method has less time consuming calculations. When
SVC was used, the optimal allocations are 0.19, 0.25 and 0.25 pu at buses 10, 13 and 14
respectively and these reactive power are fully used for the outage of line 1. On the other
hand, the optimal FACTS devices allocations obtained by the proposed method are 0.22 and
0.11 pu at buses 7 and 12 respectively. Therefore, the number of STATCOMs to be installed
is decreased as well as their reactive power capacity. The reason is that the allocated FACTS
devices proposed earlier are applied only in one area of the network (i.e. at three close
buses). This causes a non-uniform reactive power supply in the network. However, the
method proposed here, allocates FACTS devices in two separated areas of the network that
leads to a more uniform reactive power supply in the system. Consequently, it will be
effective in more contingency conditions correspond to the outage of lines.

Other important point to notice is that when the load and generation is scaled by factor of
0.95 then the weakest bus is 12 followed by bus 7 but when line is overloaded and load and
generation is scaled by factor of 1.3 then the weakest bus is 14 followed by bus 10. So
voltage instability could be at different bus depending on the loading of the line. Also, when
voltage magnitude of line set at 1.0 pu then the rating of FACTS devices to be installed is
less than that when voltage magnitude is set at 1.05 pu.

Application of FACTS devices can improve considerably the system voltage stability and
prevent voltage collapse. Nevertheless, location of FACTS devices strongly influences their
damping effect. Therefore, optimal location of FACTS is a very important issue. Here, the
application of FACTS devices to extend voltage stability margin in contingency conditions is
investigated. A probabilistic index based on modal analysis and calculation of bus
participation factors was defined which can be used to rank of system buses based on their
[58]

effect on system voltage stability enhancement under all possible contingencies. The
proposed method selects the most effective bus to voltage instability as the best place for
installing FACTS.























[59]

CHAPTER 10
REFERENCES
1. Hadi Saadat, Power System Analysis, TATA McGRAW HILL, 2006.
2. P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill
3. D P Kothari & I J Nagrath, Power system engineering, TATA McGRAW HILL, June
2008.
4. Narain G. Hingorani, Laszlo Gyugyi Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems, Wiley-IEEE Press, December
2001.
5. Enrique Acha, Claudio R. Fuerte- Esquivel, Hugo Ambriz-Perez and Cesar Angeles-
Camacho, FACTS: Modelling and Simulation in Power Networks, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd
6. B. Gao, Student Member IEEE G.K. Morison P. Kundur. Fellow IEEE, Voltage
stability evaluation using Modal Analysis, System Planning Division, Ontario
Hydro,Ontario. Canada, transactions on power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 4. November
1992
7. H.J.C.P. Pinto N. Martins X. Vieira F A. Bianco P. Gomes M. G. dos Santos,
Modal Analysis for voltage stability: Application at Base Case and Point of
Collapse, Bulk Power System Voltage Phenomena - III Voltage Stability, Security
& Control, Davos, Switzerland, 22-26 August 1994
8. Wenjuan Zhang, Fangxing Li, Leon M. Tolbert, Optimal Allocation of Shunt
Dynamic Var Source SVC and STATCOM: A Survey, IEEE paper,2006
9. J. E. Candelo, N. G. Caicedo, F. Castro-Aranda, Proposal for the Solution of
Voltage Stability Using Coordination of Facts Devices, IEEE PES Transmission
and Distribution Conference and Exposition Latin America, Venezuela, 2006
10. Nimit Boonpirom, Kitti Paitoonwattanakij, Static Voltage Stability Enhancement
using FACTS, 2005
[60]

11. D. G. Ramey, Fellow, IEEE, M. Henderson, Sr. Member, IEEE Overview of a
Special Publication on Transmission System Application Requirements for
FACTS Controllers

Potrebbero piacerti anche