Design and Analysis of Power System Stabilizer and Unified Power Flow Controller for Enhancements of Transient Stability

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 354
Design and Analysis of Power System Stabilizer and Unified Power
Flow Controller for Enhancements of Transient Stability
Shegaw Melak Akele1, Dr.T.R. Jyothsna2
1 PG student, EEE Department, Andhra University (A), Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Professor, EEE Department, Andhra University (A), Andhra Pradesh, India
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract— Modeling and analysis of AVR, PSS and UPFC
in SMIB system for the transient stability enhancement and
improvement of power transfer capability have been done in
this paper. The effects of UPFC, AVR and PSS controller
evaluated under different case studies, namely by step
changing reference voltage, infinity bus voltage, mechanical
torque and introducing short circuit fault into the system
has been made. In all cases the response of rotor angle, slip,
excitation voltage, and electrical torque were simulated.
The control strategies of UPFC are in phase voltage control,
quadrature voltage control, quadrature current control,
real current control and phase angle control, but in this
paper except phase angle control the leftovers were
implemented.
Key Words: SMIB, AVR, PSS, UPFC, Shunt injected
current; Series injected Voltage, Transient Stability.
1. INTRODUCTION
The available power generating plants are often placed in
distant locations for economic, environmental and safety
reasons. Additionally, modern power systems are highly
interconnected. Sharing of generation reserves, exploiting
load diversity and economy gained from the use of large,
efficient units without losing stability, reliability and
quality of the system. The stability of the power system
implies that all its generators remain in synchronism
through normal and abnormal operation conditions.
Transient stability arises when a large disturbance such as
a loss of generation, load or transmission line takes place
in the power system. It is becoming a major factor in
planning and day to day operations and there is a need for
fast online solutions of transient stability to predict any
possible loss of synchronism and to take the necessary
measures to restore the stability. Recently varies
controller device are designed to damp these oscillations
and to improve the system stability, which are found in
modern power system, but conventional control and
FACTS device still an alternative solution.
The main objectives of excitation system are to control the
field currents of synchronous machine. The field current is
controlled to regulate the terminal voltage of the machine.
And also, the basic functions of power system stabilizer
are to add damping to the generator rotor oscillations by
controlling its excitations using auxiliary stabilizing
signals [12]. To provide damping the stabilizer must
produce a component of electrical torque in phase with
the rotor speed deviations.
Unified Power Flow Controller (UPFC) is one of the
important members of Flexible AC Transmission
System(FACTS) family. It is a combination of Static
Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM) and Static Series
Compensator (SSSC) [2], [6], [10]. These two are coupled
via a common DC link, to allow bidirectional flow of real
power between the series output terminals of the SSSC
and the shunt output terminals of the STATCOM, and are
controlled to provide simultaneous real and reactive
series line compensation without an external electric
energy source [11]. The schematic of UPFC is shown in
Fig-1. The UPFC consists of two branches. The series
branch consists of a voltage source converter which injects
a voltage in series through a transformer. Since the series
branch of the UPFC can inject a voltage with variable
magnitude and phase angle it can exchange real power
with the transmission line [9]. The shunt branch is
required to compensate for any real power
drawn/supplied by the series branch and the losses. If the
power balance is not maintained, the capacitor cannot
remain at a constant voltage.
Control
VSC 2VSC 1
Shunt
transformer
Series
Transformer
Transmission line
VDC
Fig-1: The Schematic diagram of UPFC
As shown in Fig-1 the two converters are operated from a
common DC link provided by a DC storage capacitor. VSC2
is used to inject the required series voltage via an injection
transformer. The real power exchanged at the terminals of
the series transformer is converted by the converter into
DC power which appears at the DC link as positive or

negative real power demand. This DC link power is
converted back to AC and coupled to the transmission line
via a shunt transformer by VSC1. Thus, the basic function
of VSC1 is to supply or absorb the real power demanded
by VSC2 at the common DC link. VSC1 can also generate or
absorb controllable reactive power, thus providing shunt
compensation for the line independently of the reactive
power exchanged by VSC2[6], [7], [10]. The UPFC, thus,
functions as an ideal AC-to-AC power converter in which
real power can flow freely in either direction between the
AC terminals of the two converters and each converter can
independently generate or absorb reactive power on its
own as output terminal. It can be represented as two port
devices with a controllable voltage source in series
with the line and a controllable shunt current source .
Since the UPFC as a whole does not absorb or generate any
real power, the DC capacitor voltage has maintained a
constant. This relationship can be expressed
mathematically, from figure 2[8].
( ) (1)
UPFC has three controllable parameters: the phase and
magnitude of the series injected voltage and the
magnitude of the shunt reactive current. These
parameters can be controlled in various ways to meet
different objectives. It may not even be necessary at times
to control all the three parameters [13].
2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF POWER
SYSTEM WITH PSS, AVR AND UPFC
A classical single machine infinity bus power system as
shown in Fig-8 is considered. UPFC is placed in the middle
to regulate the bus voltage, to control power flow and to
improve the transmission capability.
2.1 Generator equation
The synchronous generator is represented by the detailed
model 1.1 comprising of the electromechanical swing
equation and the generator internal voltage equation. The
differential equations describing the dynamic behavior of
the synchronous generator are listed as follows.
 Rotor swings equations
( – ) (2)
( – ) ( ) (3)
Where is the slip, is the base synchronous speed
and D is the damping [1-4].
 Electrical torque, expressed as
( ) (4)
The mechanical torque input Tm is assumed to be
constant. The turbine-governor controls are neglected as
they have negligible effect on the first swing transient
stability [1-4].
 Internal voltage equations expressed as
( ) ( ) (5)
( ) ( ) (6)
2.2 Automatic voltage regulator model
The excitation systems of the generators are using the AVR
for maintaining the magnitude of the terminal voltage of
the synchronous generators at the desired level. AVR in
power systems also plays another important role of
controlling the reactive power to help in enhancing system
stability [2-4].
In short, automatic voltage regulator is provided in the
excitation systems for improving power system stability.
The excitation system affects stability under both
transient and steady state conditions. Fig-2 shows the
block diagrams of a static automatic voltage regulator [1].
Σ
Vg
Vref
Vpss
Efd
Efdmax
Efdmin
A
A
ST1
K

AE


Fig-2: Block diagram of AVR
Equations described statics automatic voltage regulator
are,
(7)
(8)
( ) ( ) (9)
Output of static automatic voltage regulator is given by
( )
( )
( )
} (10)

2.3. Power system stabilizer model
The disturbances occurring in a power system induce
electromechanical oscillations of the electrical generators.
These oscillations, also called power swings, must be
effectively damped for generator rotor oscillation to
maintain the system stability. So, it is controlled by using a
Power system stabilizer, the output signal of the PSS is
used as an additional input to the Excitation System. The
Power System Stabilizer is modeled by the following
nonlinear system [1-3]:
Σ
2u
 

Σ

2
1
T
T
2
1
1
T
T

21
1
ST
Vs
SK
1u
wST1
1 wV
mS
smaxV
sminV
PSSV
Washout Circuit Dynamic Compositor
Fig- 3: State variables Block diagram of PSS
Wash out circuit is provided to eliminate steady state bias
in the output of PSS. The time constant and are
chosen depending on the compensation required for
damping. It is to be noted that a single lead-lag
compensator is adequate with a static exciter.
Dynamic compensator transfer function expressed as
( ) ( ) ( )
Equation described PSS are derived from both washout
and dynamic compensator circuit
( ) ( ) (11)
(12)
( ) ( ) (13)
( ) (14)
Where and are state variables corresponding to
wash out circuit and dynamic compensator. The outputs of
PSS are given by
( )
( )
( )
} (15)
2.4 Unified Power Flow Controller(UPFC) model
The UPFC can perform the function of STATCOM and SSSC
and phase angle regulator. Besides that, the UPFC also
provides an additional flexibility by combining some of the
functions above. UPFC has also a unique capability to
control real and reactive power flow simultaneously on a
transmission system as well as to regulate the voltage on
the bus where it’s connected. At the same time the UPFC
also can increase the security system by increases the limit
of transient stability, fault and the overload demand [14].
The UPFC allows us three degrees of freedom such as
magnitude of series injected voltage, the magnitude of the
shunt reactive current and phase angle. Mainly UPFC has
two main control strategies.
2.4.1 Series injected voltage control
To achieve real and reactive power flow control, it need to
inject a series voltage of the appropriate magnitude and
angle. The injected voltage can be split into two
components which are in phase or real voltage and in
quadrature or reactive voltage to the line current. This can
be controlled active power flow using the reactive voltage
and the reactive power controlled by using a real voltage
of the injected voltage [6], [7].
To design series injected voltage control using one of the
two methods:
(i) Power flow control using reactive voltage.
(ii) UPFC port 2 voltage control using real voltage.
2.4.2 Shunt Current Control
It is well known that shunt reactive current injection can
be used to control bus voltage. It is split into real and
reactive current. The reactive current reference is set by a
bus voltage magnitude regulator (for port 1 of the UPFC)
[1].
To design Shunt converter voltage control by using one of
the three methods,
(i) Closed loop current (real and reactive) control.
(ii) UPFC port 1 voltage control using reactive current.
(iii) Capacitor voltage regulation using real current.
Control of UPFC
UPFC is a combination of shunt and series controllers. The
shunt current is split into two components: a reactive
current in quadrature with bus voltage and a real
current in phase with . The reactive current is
controlled to regulate the voltage magnitude at port 1 of
the UPFC as proposed for the STATCOM by Schauder and
Mehta [3]. The voltage reference of the voltage regulator

can be varied slowly to meet steady state reactive power
requirements. The reference value for the shunt real
current is set so that the capacitor voltage is
regulated, which implies power balance. The series
injected voltage can be controlled to meet a required real
and reactive power demand in the line [6].
AC
V2V1 Ish
I2I1
Vinj
Fig- 4: UPFC equivalent circuit
The series injected voltage can be split into two
components: one component of magnitude in phase
with the line current and another component of
magnitude in quadrature with the current. The
controller is designed to control the magnitudes of the two
components of the injected voltage independently to meet
the real and reactive power requirements [7-11].
The line with the UPFC is shown in Fig.-4.
Injecting a voltage in quadrature with the line current is
equivalent to inserting a reactance in series in the line.
Since the line current varies, injecting a constant voltage in
quadrature, actually introduces a variable reactance.
However, a series voltage injected in phase with the
current is not exactly analogous to a variable resistance
inserted in series with the line. If a resistor is inserted in a
lossless line, the sending end power will have to supply
the receiving end power and the loss in the resistor.
2.4.3 Controller structure
A) Controller for
The in-phase component is used to regulate the magnitude
of voltage . The controller structure is as shown in Fig-
5. In the figure is the value of the desired magnitude
of voltage obtained from Eq. (31). is the time
constant to represent a delay in measurements, A simple
integral controller is used for the control of . Limits
are placed on the minimum and maximum values of .
The gain of the integral controller has to be adjusted so as
to prevent frequent hitting of the limits by the controller.
It is assumed that follows without any time
delay. During a contingency, can itself be varied.
2u

Σ
1u
inj1maxV
inj1minV
inj1V
3u
S
KI1
|V| S2
S2refV
mmST1
1


Fig- 5: Block diagram for Controller
The block diagrams of controller can be expressed
mathematically:
( ) (16)
(17)
(18)
( )
( )
( )
} (19)
B) Controller for
is controlled to meet the real power demand in the
line. Referring to Fig-6, is the steady-state power,
and are constants to provide damping and
synchronizing powers in the line, is the generator slip,
Is the measured delay and is the actual power
flowing in the line. Setting of and to zero results in
a constant power controller where the injected voltage is
controlled so as to maintain the line power at . The two
components of the series injected voltage can be
controlled independently. If is assumed to be zero at
all times, then the UPFC behaves like a Static Synchronous
Series Compensator (SSSC), in which case, only the
component is controlled as described above. In this
case, VSC1 in figur1can be eliminated as no exchange of
real power takes place. It is assumed that follows
without any time delay [6].
From the controller orders, and ,be able to
compute the magnitude of the series voltage to be injected
as,
√ (20)
This voltage is injected with an angle of lead over the
angle of the line current ( ), given by
( ) (21)

A phase-locked loop is required to attain synchronization
with the line current.
Σ

Σ
e0P
inj2maxV
inj2minV
4XS
K I2
mmST1
1


CD
WST1
1

refP
lineP
mS

Σ Σ
S
K C
1X 2X
3X





1u 2u
Fig- 6: Transfer functions, representation of controller
( ) (22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
( )
( )
( )
} (29)
C) Shunt Injected Current
The shunt current is split in to two components: a
reactive current in quadrature with bus voltage
and a real current in phase with . The reactive
current is controlled to regulate the voltage
magnitude at port 1 of the UPFC as proposed for the
STATCOM by Schauder and Mehta [3]. The voltage
reference of the voltage regulator can be varied slowly to
meet steady state reactive power requirements. The
reference value for the shunt real current is set so
that the capacitor voltage is regulated which implies
power balance.
The series and shunt VSIs are represented by controllable
voltage sources and , respectively. and
represent the resistance and leakage reactance of the
shunt transformer [6].
( ) (30)
( ) (31)
2.5 Power angle curve with UPFC
The steady-state power angle curves for the system of Fig-
8: are shown in Fig-7a and b.
Fig-7a: shows the power angle curve for fixed values of
generator voltage and infinity bus voltages and , for
different values of . It can be seen that when the
injected voltage is capacitive, the power angle curve is
higher than when it is zero. From the figure, it can be
observed that as the magnitude of injected increases,
the angle at which maximum power transfer takes place
increases and it mainly affect the actual powers of the
system.
Fig- 7b: plots the power angle curve with fixed values of
, generator and infinitive bus voltages, for different
values of . It is interesting to observe that the effect
of injecting a negative resistive voltage in series is to
increase the reactive power transfer in varies values of δ.
With an increase in the magnitude of , the angle at
which maximum reactive power transfer takes place also
increases.
(a) Fixed value of ( )
(b) Fixed value of ( )
Fig- 7: Power angle curve with UPFC: (a) Fixed value of
( ),(b) Fixed value of
( )
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Rotor angle in deg.
ActivePower,Pe
Power-angle diagram with UPFC
Vinj2=-0.2
Vinj2=0.0
Vinj2=0.1
Vinj2=0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Rotor angle in deg.
ReactivePower,Qe
power-angle diagram
Vinj1=-0.2
Vinj1=0.0
Vinj1=0.1
Vinj1=0.2

Referring to Fig -7: if the power demand at the receiving
end ( and ) and the receiving end voltage are
specified the current required to meet this power demand
and the voltage can be computed from
(32)
( ) (33)
The magnitude of the in-phase component ( ), is
controlled to maintain the magnitude of at the value
obtained from Eq. (33). That means, it is possible to
control indirectly the reactive power by changing the
voltage reference value for port 2. The magnitude of the
quadrature component ( ), is controlled to meet the
real power demand and the magnitude of the real
component ( ), is controlled to meet the reactive
power demand . Hence, the power flow in the line has
to be suitably modulated to maintain stability and damp
the oscillations.
3. MODELLING OF UPFC FOR TRANSIENT
STABILITY
In transient stability programs, the network has to be
solved for the bus voltages. The admittance form of
representing the network has gained widespread
application due to the simplicity of data preparation and
the sparsely of the bus admittance matrix.
6
5321
Xt
Rl Rl
RlRl
Xl
Xl Xl
Xl
Xb
Vg
Eb 0
4
UPFC
Fig- 8: SMIB with UPFC system
In this representation, the bus voltages are solved from:
[ ] [ ] (34)
Where is the vector of bus voltages, [ ] is the vector of
current injections and [ ] is the bus admittance matrix.
The current injection at any bus is the sum of injections
due to generators, nonlinear loads and other devices
connected to the bus. The UPFC can be modeled as
dependent current sources and the current injections due
to the UPFC can be computed and used in Eq. (34) along
with other current injections to solve the bus voltages, as
explained below.
From UPFC equivalent circuit (Fig. 4), the current
injections due to the UPFC at the two ports are and
which have to be determined at every time step of the
simulation process [6]. From the figure we can write,
( ) (35)
( ) (36)
It is to be noted here that the shunt current is the sum of
the two components and and the series injected
voltage is the sum of the components whose magnitudes
are and . The magnitude of the shunt real
current is determined from power balance
requirements as
( ) (37)
The magnitudes of the components of the series injected
voltage, and , and the magnitude of the shunt
reactive current are obtained as output of controllers.
With the external network represent by its Thevenin
equivalent at the two ports of the UPFC the two-port
network equation can be written as
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] (38)
In the above equation is the open circuit voltage
across port 1 and is the open circuit voltage across
port 2. is the open circuit impedance matrix of the
external network at the two ports. At every time step of
the simulation, the UPFC current injections are computed
as follows:
1. Compute , the open circuit impedance matrix of the
external network at the two ports. This has to be
computed only at the instants of the network undergoing a
change.
2. Compute the open circuit voltages and at
the two ports. This is obtained by solving Eq.(34) with
UPFC current injections and set to zero.
3. It is important to note here that at a given time step,
only the magnitudes of the components of the series
injected voltage and the shunt reactive current are
obtained from the controller. The angle of the series
injected voltage is with reference to the series and the
angle of the shunt current source depends on (Fig.
2). Hence, an iterative scheme will have to be used to solve
the network. At any kth iteration of the solution, noting

that we know the values of , , ,
solve as follows:
(i) Fix the angle of with respect to , .
(ii) Compute the magnitude of, using Eq. (37) as
(
(
( )and (
)from Eq. (36). Substituting these two relations, Eq.
(38) is written as
̅ ̅ [̅ ] [
̅
̅ ̅
]
(41)
Solve the above equation for ̅ and compute
( ̅ ̅ ) (42)
(v) Substitute and in Eq. (34) with the other
current injections and solve for the bus voltages.
(vi) Go to step (i) and iterate until
| | (43)
It is important to note here that the iterations have to be
carried out at every time step of the solution [4-6]. The
algorithm for the solution of bus voltages with the UPFC
converged in three to five iterations in the case studies
presented below. Hence, the model can be used effectively
for transient stability studies.
4. CASE STUDIES
4.1 Description
The case studies are carried out on the single machine
infinity bus system through a double circuit transmission
line with intermediate buses to evaluate the transient
stability of the system under different case studies. The
system is considered as shown Fig-8 The data are given in
Appendix. In the figure, and represents the
Thevenins impedance and Thevenins voltage of the
external network.
The UPFC is connected at the middle of the transmission
line. The initial operating points are obtained by the UPFC
does not inject any voltage and current into the system.
The component is controlled so as to maintain the
voltage of bus four at its steady state value which is equal
to the value of the infinite bus in this case study. is
varied to control the power flow in the line. UPFC port one
voltage control using shunt reactive current and real
components of shut injected current used to regulate
capacitor voltage for maintaining power balance. The
magnitude of each of the two components of the UPFC is
restricted to ± 0.35 per unit.
To study the performance of the controller the following
case studies are carried out.
Case I: By step changing the reference voltage,
Case II: By step changing the mechanical torque,
Case III: By step changing the infinity bus voltage,
Case IV: A three phase fault at the sending end of one of
the circuits of the transmission line followed by clearing at
the end of 4 cycles. The fault is happing in between buses
two and three. Then, the switch is tripped a single
transmission line to clear the fault.
4.2 Result and discussion
In order to observe the effects of both conventional and
FACTS device controllers on power system four cases have
been made. In all cases the response of rotor angle,
variation of slip, variation of excitation voltage, variation
of electrical torque, variation of terminal voltage and the
terminal current in d-q axis has done. But, in this paper the
first three consecutive system parameters were plotted
and discussed. The responses without controller are not
included. The response with automatic voltage regulator,
power system stabilizer and unified power flow controller
shown with read line, blue line and green line with legend
‘AVR’,’PSS’, and ‘UPFC’; respectively. The following cases
are considered:
Case -I: By step changing the reference voltage ( )
In this case, the simulation has done the changing of
by 0.1 in each step in the system. As shown in Fig- (12a-
12c) the systems are unstable with an AVR controller. But,
with PSS and UPFC controllers the systems are stable.
When the reference voltage increases the response of
rotor angle is reduced from a steady state value or initial
value. Fig-12a shows, the response of the rotor angle
controlled by the UPFC has been a little bit higher than the
response of the rotor angle controlled by PSS. The
response of the system with UPFC is more stable than AVR
and to a certain extent stable than PSS controller. The PSS
and UPFC controllers could damp the oscillation within
two seconds. The electrical torque and slip with PSS and
UPFCS increases initially and settles down to the previous
value by neglecting the superimposed oscillations. The
field voltage hits the ceiling initially and settles down
(neglecting oscillations) to initial operating value as the
demagnetizing current is reduced on account of the
decrease in the rotor angle.
) (39)
iii) Compute
) (40)
(iv) From Eq. (35) have

Fig- 12a: Variation of rotor angle (δ)
Fig- 12b: Variation of slip,
Fig- 12c: Variation of electrical torque,
Case -II: By step changing the mechanical torque ( )
Step increasing of mechanical torque in the system occurs
for 10 seconds. The plot of the variations of rotor angle,
slip, filed voltage, and electrical torque is given in Fig-
(13a-13c). The system result shows that, the system with
AVR is unstable and the oscillations and their magnitude
continual increased. As shown the figure, the system with
power system stabilizers and a unified power flow
controller is the oscillation fully cleared after two cycles.
The response rotor angle is increased beyond to a steady
state value as the mechanical torque is increased. The
response of the electrical torque increased beyond to a
steady state value. But, as shown Fig-13c the system
controlled by the power system stabilizer have got high
electrical torque responses than the system controlled by
UPFC. The responses of slip slightly rise and settles down
to the initial operating value by neglecting oscillation
within 1.5 second, when the Changed continuously
from 0.1. The field voltage, highly increases initially and
settles down to initial operating value and the oscillations
are cleared beyond to two cycles.
Fig- 13a: Variation of rotor angle, δ
Fig- 13b: Variation of sleep,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
40
45
50
55
60
65
Time in Sec.
Generatorrotorangleindeg.
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
Time in Sec.
slip,Sm,
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Time in Sec.
ElectricalTorque
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
60
65
70
75
80
Time in Sec.
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
-3
Time in Sec.
slip,Sm,
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC

Case-III: By step changing the infinity bus voltage,
The third case is concentrated on step changing infinity
bus voltage in to the system. As shown in the Fig- (14a-
14c), the system with automatic voltage regulator is
unstable and has more oscillations, but the system
controlled by power system stabilizer and unified power
flow control the system become stable after two cycles.
The response of the rotor angle increased ahead of to
initial value and also the system controlled by the power
system stabilizer give high over shoot compared to the
system controlled by a unifying power flow control. The
slip response is initially rising and settles down to a
slightly lower value than the initial operating value in both
controllers. The response electrical torque is a slightly
lower value compared to the steady state value as the
infinity bus voltage is increased. Whereas, as shown Fig-
14c the system controlled by the unified power flow
control have high electrical torque responses than the
system controlled by power system stabilizer. The
oscillations are cleared at almost in to two second. In this
case the response of electrical torque with unified power
flow control had more over shoot than the response with
power system stabilizer.
Case IV: In this case, three phase short circuit fault is
happened in between bus two and three, and this line is
disconnected for the sake of clearing fault from the
system. The plot of the variations of rotor angle, slip, and
electrical torque is given in Fig- (15a-15c).
The system result shows that, the system with automatic
voltage regulator is unstable and the oscillations and their
magnitude continual increased. As shown the figure, the
system with power system stabilizers and a unified power
flow controller is the oscillation cleared after four cycles.
The response electrical torque and rotor angle is increased
beyond to a steady state or initial operating value. The
response of rotor angle is increased beyond to a steady
state value in both controllers, when infinity bus voltage
increased but the oscillations are damping at four seconds.
The responses of slip initially rise and settles down to the
initial operating value or steady state value by neglecting
oscillation.
The field voltage, highly increases initially and settles
down to initial operating value and the oscillations are
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
Time in Sec.
ElectricalTorque
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
Time in Sec.
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
Time in Sec.
slip,Sm,
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
0.66
Time in Sec.
ElectricalTorque With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC

cleared at 1.5 second. Fig -15c show, the response of the
electrical torque controlled by the power system stabilizer
has been higher than the response of the electrical torque
controlled by unified power flow control. As shown in Fig-
15c, the response of electrical torque has more settling
time than the remain cases.
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the effects of different controllers namely
AVR, PSS and UPFC have been studied under four different
case studies for transient stability improvement of a SMIB
power system. The UPFC being a very versatile device can
be used for fast controller of active and reactive power in
the transmission line. PSS helps in improving transient
stability of the system without degrading the system’s
performance in case of faults or transients. As shown from
the results, there is a considerable improvement in the
system performance with the presence of UPFC and PSS.
It is clear from the simulation results that, the system with
automatic voltage regulation is marginally unstable and
the oscillations continue increasing in all cases. The
response rotor angle decreases as the reference voltage is
increased. But, the rotor angle response is increasing as
the infinity bus voltage and mechanical torque increased.
The responses of slip initially rise and settles down to the
initial operating value by neglecting oscillation. The
excitation voltage hits the ceiling initially and settles down
to a slightly lower value compared to the initial operating
value. The system result shows after clearing the short
circuit fault and during increment of mechanical torque
the magnitude of the electrical torque controlled by the
power system stabilizer has been higher than the
magnitude of the electrical torque controlled by UPFC. But,
equal to and lower than the initial operation value where
reference voltage and the infinity bus voltage is increased,
respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to our guide,
Dr. T. R. JYOTHSNA, professor, Department of Electrical
Engineering, Andhra University College of engineering,
Visakhapatnam, for her guidance. I shall always cherish
our association for her encouragement, approachability
and freedom of thought and action which I had enjoyed
during this work.
REFERENCE
[1] Padiyar KR.," Power System Dynamics Stability and
Control". Singapore: Wiley,1996.
[2] K.R.Padiyar," FACTS controllers in power transmission
and distibution "Bangalore, India,2007.
[3] Kundur, P., “Power system stability and control”,
McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1994.
[4] Hingorani, N. G., “Flexible AC transmission”, IEEE
Spectrum, pp 40-45, 1993.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Time in Sec.
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
-3
Time in Sec.
slip,Sm,
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Time in Sec.
ElectricalTorque
With AVR
With PSS
With UPFC

[5] Gyugyi, L, “Dynamic compensation of AC
transmission lines by solid-state synchronous voltage
sources”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.9, no.
2, pp. 904-911, 1994.
[6] K.R.Padiyar, K. Uma Rao," Modelling and control of
unified power flow controller for transient stability",
Electrical Power and Energy Systems, no. 2, pp. 1-11,
1999.
[7] Anderson, P. M., Fouad, A. A., “Power system
control and stability”, Iowa State University Press,
AMES, IOWA, U.S.A, 1977.
[8] Shaoru, Z., Fang, Lin, L., “An improved simple
adaptive control applied to power system stabilizer”
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol.24,no.2,
pp.369-375, 2009.
[9 Erinmez, I. A., Foss, A. M., “Static Synchronous
Compensator (STATCOM)”, Working Group 14.19
CIGRE Study Committee 14, Document No. 144, 1999.
[10] Mathur, R. M., Basati, R. S., “Thyristor-Based
FACTS Controllers for Electrical Transmission
Systems”, IEEE Press Series in Power Engineering,
2002.
[11 Yong Hua Song, Allan T. Johns, “Flexible AC
Transmission Systems (FACTS)”, London, UK: IEE
Press, 1999.
[12] Padiyar, K. R., Varma, R. K., “Damping torque
analysis of static VAR system oscillations”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, no. 2,
pp.458–465, 1991.
[13] Gyugyi L. Unified power flow concept for flexible
AC transmission systems. IEE Proceedings DC 1992.
[14] CIGRE Task Force 14-27, “Unified Power Flow
Controller”, CIGRE Technical Brochure, 1998.
[15] Hingorani, N.G., Gyugyi,L, “Understanding FACTS:
concepts and technology of flexible AC transmission
systems”, New York: IEEE Press, 2000.
APPENDIX
A single line diagram of the system is shown in Fig.8. The
system data one 1000 MVA base are given below.
Generator: , ,
, , , H = 3.542,
.
Transformer:
Transmission line: (per circuit): = 0.08593, = 0.8125,
= 0.1184 (These parameters are representative of a 400
kV, 400 km long line with 50% shunt compensation)
Excitation System: , , ,
Operating Data , , ,
, 21.65°, = 0.13636
Power system stabilizer data: , , ,
, ,
UPFC data: , , , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
AUTHORS’ PROFILES
Shegaw Melak Akele received
his B.Sc. degree in Electrical
Engineering (Power) from
Debre Markos University,
Ethiopia in 2013. He is
currently M.Tech student in
Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam, India. His
research interest includes
power system analysis,
Renewable energy, FACTS
Devices, power system
dynamics and stability.
Dr. T. R. JYOTHSNA is a
Professor of Electrical
Engineering in Andhra
University College of
Engineering Visakhapatnam
India. she has decades of
teaching experience in the field
of electrical engineering in
general and power system
engineering in particular. Her
area of research includes
Power System Analysis, Power
System Dynamics and Stability,
Renewable Energy, Power
Electronics, Power Electronic
Devices and Controllers and
Application of Power
Electronic Devices in to Power
Systems.

Design and Analysis of Power System Stabilizer and Unified Power Flow Controller for Enhancements of Transient Stability

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Design and Analysis of Power System Stabilizer and Unified Power Flow Controller for Enhancements of Transient Stability (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Design and Analysis of Power System Stabilizer and Unified Power Flow Controller for Enhancements of Transient Stability